On Thu, Sep 7, 2023 at 3:48 AM David Rowley <dgrowleyml@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Sept 2023 at 19:17, Peter Geoghegan <pg@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > It seems likely that the problem here is that some of the predicates
> > appear as so-called "Filter:" conditions, as opposed to true index
> > quals.
>
> hmm, if that were true we'd see "Rows Removed by Filter" in the
> explain analyze.
That's why I hedged, with "seems likely". The problem with using
filter conditions rather than true index quals isn't limited to the
problem of extra heap accesses. It happened to be convenient to make
my point that way, but that isn't particularly fundamental here.
I deliberately chose to make my example involve an index-only scan
(that doesn't require any heap accesses) for this reason.
> I think all that's going on is that each tuple is on a different page
> and the heap accesses are just causing many buffers to be accessed.
This index is an absolute monstrosity. I find it far easier to believe
that the real explanation is the one that Steve intuited: that there
is an issue with the way that the physical data structures (which are
more or less comparable in both systems) are accessed in Postgres.
The index in question
("history_event_display_timesta_prism_guid_display_timestamp_idx1")
has certain columns that are omitted from the query. These columns
nevertheless appear between other columns that the query filters on.
The leading two columns ("prism_guid" and "display_timestamp") are
made into index quals by Postgres, but the next index column after
those two ("unique_lookup_key") is omitted by the query, and so isn't an index
qual. In fact *four* columns are omitted after that one. But, the very-low-order
index column "product_sid" *does* appear in the query, and so also
appears as Postgres index quals.
There is every chance that the true underlying explanation is that
Oracle is able to skip over significant parts of the index structure
dynamically. In fact I'm practically certain that that's the case,
since the "product_sid" column appears as an "access predicate", rather
than as a "filter predicate". These terms are explained here:
https://use-the-index-luke.com/sql/explain-plan/oracle/filter-predicates
https://use-the-index-luke.com/sql/explain-plan/postgresql/filter-predicates
How could "product_sid" be used as an "access predicate" given the
omitted index columns? It seems very likely that parts of the index
can be skipped in Oracle, but not in Postgres -- at least not yet.
Like Markus Winand, I think that it's a real problem that EXPLAIN
doesn't yet expose the difference between access predicates and filter
predicates. Some of the index quals shown by EXPLAIN are marked
SK_BT_REQFWD/SK_BT_REQBKWD by nbtree (meaning that they're what Oracle
calls "access predicates"), while other are not (meaning that they're
what Oracle calls "filter predicates"). That issue makes it far harder to spot
these sorts of problems.
> It seems to me that an IOS would likely fix that problem which is why I
> suggested count(*) instead of
> count(<not_null_column_thats_the_only_col_used_thats_not_in_the_index>)
Probably, but why should we have to use an index-only scan? And what
about my example, that already used one, and still showed a big
disparity where there is no inherently reason why there had to be? My
example didn't involve jumping to another part of the index because the
problem seems to be more general than that.
--
Peter Geoghegan
