Hi Jan,
Adding this Index slowed down things by a factor of 4.
Also, the performance is so horrible (example bellow) that i am
certain i am doing something wrong.
Does the following explain gives any ideas ?
Thanks
=# EXPLAIN ANALYZE select * from word_association where (word1 ='the'
or word2='the') and count > 10;
QUERY PLAN
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bitmap Heap Scan on word_association (cost=250.86..7256.59 rows=4624
width=22) (actual time=13.461..211.568 rows=6601 loops=1)
Recheck Cond: (((word1)::text = 'the'::text) OR ((word2)::text =
'the'::text))
Filter: (count > 10)
-> BitmapOr (cost=250.86..250.86 rows=12243 width=0) (actual
time=9.052..9.052 rows=0 loops=1)
-> Bitmap Index Scan on word_association_index1_1
(cost=0.00..153.20 rows=7579 width=0) (actual time=5.786..5.786
rows=7232 loops=1)
Index Cond: ((word1)::text = 'the'::text)
-> Bitmap Index Scan on word_association_index2_1
(cost=0.00..95.34 rows=4664 width=0) (actual time=3.253..3.253
rows=4073 loops=1)
Index Cond: ((word2)::text = 'the'::text)
Total runtime: 219.987 ms
(9 rows)
On 4/9/07, Jan de Visser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Monday 09 April 2007 05:09:53 s d wrote:
> Hi,
> I am trying to figure out how to debug a performance problem / use psql
> explain. The table in question is:
> # \d word_association;
> Table "public.word_association"
> Column | Type | Modifiers
> --------+------------------------+--------------------
> word1 | character varying(128) | not null
> word2 | character varying(128) | not null
> count | integer | not null default 0
> Indexes:
> "word1_word2_comb_unique" unique, btree (word1, word2)
> "word1_hash_index" hash (word1)
> "word2_hash_index" hash (word2)
> "word_association_count_index" btree (count)
> "word_association_index1_1" btree (word1)
> "word_association_index2_1" btree (word2)
>
> It has multiple indices since i wanted to see which one the planner choses.
>
>
> # explain select * FROM word_association WHERE (word1 = 'bdss' OR
> word2 = 'bdss') AND count >= 10;
> QUERY PLAN
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>--------------------- Bitmap Heap Scan on word_association
> (cost=11.53..1192.09 rows=155 width=22) Recheck Cond: (((word1)::text =
> 'bdss'::text) OR ((word2)::text = 'bdss'::text))
> Filter: (count >= 10)
> -> BitmapOr (cost=11.53..11.53 rows=364 width=0)
> -> Bitmap Index Scan on word_association_index1_1
> (cost=0.00..5.79 rows=190 width=0)
> Index Cond: ((word1)::text = 'bdss'::text)
> -> Bitmap Index Scan on word_association_index2_1
> (cost=0.00..5.67 rows=174 width=0)
> Index Cond: ((word2)::text = 'bdss'::text)
> (8 rows)
>
> The questions:
> 1. i can undestand where the cost=11.53 came from but where did the
> 1192.09 come form? The values are in milli right ?
> 2. the query takes in reality much longer than 1 second.
>
> In short, it feels like something is very wrong here (i tried vacuum
> analyze and it didn't do much diff).
> any ideas ?
You need an index on (word1, word2, count). In your current setup it will have
to scan all rows that satisfy word1 and word2 to see if count >= 10.
jan
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jan de Visser [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Baruk Khazad! Khazad ai-menu!
--------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at
http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
