Re: [PERFORM] fast DISTINCT or EXIST
Can't you use something like this? Or is the distinct on the t.cd_id
still causing the major slowdown here?
SELECT ... FROM cd
JOIN tracks ...
WHERE cd.id IN (SELECT DISTINCT t.cd_id FROM tracks t
WHERE t.tstitle @@ plainto_tsquery('simple','education') LIMIT 10)
If that is your main culprit, you could also use two limits based on the
fact that there will be at most X songs per cd which would match your
title (my not very educated guess is 3x). Its a bit ugly... but if that
is what it takes to make postgresql not scan your entire index, so be it...
SELECT ... FROM cd
JOIN tracks ...
WHERE cd.id IN (SELECT DISTINCT cd_id FROM (SELECT t.cd_id FROM tracks t
WHERE t.tstitle @@ plainto_tsquery('simple','education') LIMIT 30)
as foo LIMIT 10)
Best regards,
Arjen
On 7-4-2007 12:47 Tilo Buschmann wrote:
Hello,
I am trying to build a application to search CDs and their tracks and I
am experiencing some performance difficulties.
The database is very simple at the moment, two tables cd and tracks
contain the CD-information and their respective tracks. A column
cd_id in public.tracks is the foreign key to the cd table.
#v+
Table public.cd
Column| Type| Modifiers
-+---+
revision| integer | not null default 0
disc_length | integer |
via | character varying |
cd_id | integer | not null default
nextval('cd_cd_id_seq'::regclass)
discid | integer | not null
title | character varying | not null
artist | character varying | not null
year| smallint |
genre | character varying |
ext | character varying |
tstitle | tsvector |
tsartist| tsvector |
Indexes:
cd_id_key PRIMARY KEY, btree (cd_id)
discid_key UNIQUE, btree (discid)
tsartist_cd_idx gist (tsartist)
tstitle_cd_idx gist (tstitle)
Check constraints:
year_check CHECK (year IS NULL OR year = 0 AND year = 1)
Tablespace: d_separate
Table public.tracks
Column | Type| Modifiers
--+---+---
track_id | integer | not null default
nextval('tracks_track_id_seq'::regclass)
cd_id| integer | not null
title| character varying |
artist | character varying |
ext | character varying |
length | integer |
number | smallint | not null default 0
tstitle | tsvector |
tsartist | tsvector |
Indexes:
tracks_pkey PRIMARY KEY, btree (track_id)
cdid_tracks_idx btree (cd_id)
tsartist_tracks_idx gist (tsartist)
tstitle_tracks_idx gin (tstitle)
Foreign-key constraints:
tracks_cd_id_fkey FOREIGN KEY (cd_id) REFERENCES cd(cd_id) ON UPDATE
RESTRICT ON DELETE RESTRICT
Tablespace: d_separate
#v-
I am using tsearch2 to be able to search very fast for CD and track
artists and titles.
The database is created only once and I expect SELECTS to happen very
often, therefore the indexes will not hurt the performance. I also ran
a VACUUM FULL ANALYSE.
The query that I want to optimise at the moment is the Give me all CDs
with their tracks, that contain a track with the Title 'foobar'. The
query is very expensive, so I try to limit it to 10 cds at once.
My first idea was:
#+
cddb=# EXPLAIN ANALYSE SELECT cd.cd_id,cd.title,cd.artist,tracks.title FROM
tracks JOIN (SELECT cd.cd_id,cd.artist,cd.title FROM cd JOIN tracks USING
(cd_id) WHERE tracks.tstitle @@ plainto_tsquery('simple','education') LIMIT 10)
AS cd USING (cd_id);
QUERY PLAN
--
Nested Loop (cost=0.00..3852.42 rows=11974 width=91) (actual
time=310.983..972.739 rows=136 loops=1)
- Limit (cost=0.00..121.94 rows=10 width=46) (actual
time=264.797..650.178 rows=10 loops=1)
- Nested Loop (cost=0.00..227602.43 rows=18665 width=46) (actual
time=264.793..650.165 rows=10 loops=1)
- Index Scan using tstitle_tracks_idx on tracks
(cost=0.00..73402.74 rows=18665 width=4) (actual time=155.516..155.578 rows=10
loops=1)
Index Cond: (tstitle @@ '''education'''::tsquery)
- Index Scan using cd_id_key on cd (cost=0.00..8.25 rows=1
width=46) (actual time=49.452..49.453 rows=1 loops=10)
Index Cond: (public.cd.cd_id = public.tracks.cd_id)
- Index Scan using cdid_tracks_idx on tracks (cost=0.00..358.08 rows=1197
width=27) (actual
Re: [PERFORM] fast DISTINCT or EXIST
Arjen van der Meijden [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If that is your main culprit, you could also use two limits based on the
fact that there will be at most X songs per cd which would match your
title (my not very educated guess is 3x). Its a bit ugly... but if that
is what it takes to make postgresql not scan your entire index, so be it...
SELECT ... FROM cd
JOIN tracks ...
WHERE cd.id IN (SELECT DISTINCT cd_id FROM (SELECT t.cd_id FROM tracks t
WHERE t.tstitle @@ plainto_tsquery('simple','education') LIMIT 30)
as foo LIMIT 10)
I think that's the only way. There is no plan type in Postgres that
will generate unique-ified output without scanning the whole input
first, except for Uniq on pre-sorted input, which we can't use here
because the tsearch scan isn't going to deliver the rows in cd_id order.
I can see how to build one: make a variant of HashAggregate that returns
each input row immediately after hashing it, *if* it isn't a duplicate
of one already in the hash table. But it'd be a lot of work for what
seems a rather specialized need.
regards, tom lane
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [PERFORM] fast DISTINCT or EXIST
Hi everyone,
On Sat, 07 Apr 2007 11:54:08 -0400
Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Arjen van der Meijden [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If that is your main culprit, you could also use two limits based on the
fact that there will be at most X songs per cd which would match your
title (my not very educated guess is 3x). Its a bit ugly... but if that
is what it takes to make postgresql not scan your entire index, so be it...
SELECT ... FROM cd
JOIN tracks ...
WHERE cd.id IN (SELECT DISTINCT cd_id FROM (SELECT t.cd_id FROM tracks t
WHERE t.tstitle @@ plainto_tsquery('simple','education') LIMIT 30)
as foo LIMIT 10)
I think that's the only way. There is no plan type in Postgres that
will generate unique-ified output without scanning the whole input
first, except for Uniq on pre-sorted input, which we can't use here
because the tsearch scan isn't going to deliver the rows in cd_id order.
Unfortunately, the query above will definitely not work correctly, if
someone searches for a or the.
The correct query does not perform as well as I hoped.
#v+
cddb=# EXPLAIN ANALYSE SELECT cd.cd_id,cd.artist,cd.title,tracks.title FROM cd
JOIN tracks USING (cd_id) WHERE cd_id IN (SELECT DISTINCT tracks.cd_id FROM
tracks WHERE tracks.tstitle @@ plainto_tsquery('simple','sympathy') LIMIT 10);
QUERY PLAN
--
Nested Loop (cost=61031.41..64906.58 rows=139 width=69) (actual
time=31236.562..31810.940 rows=166 loops=1)
- Nested Loop (cost=61031.41..61176.20 rows=10 width=50) (actual
time=31208.649..31388.289 rows=10 loops=1)
- Limit (cost=61031.41..61089.74 rows=10 width=4) (actual
time=31185.972..31186.024 rows=10 loops=1)
- Unique (cost=61031.41..61124.74 rows=16 width=4) (actual
time=31185.967..31186.006 rows=10 loops=1)
- Sort (cost=61031.41..61078.07 rows=18665 width=4)
(actual time=31185.961..31185.977 rows=11 loops=1)
Sort Key: public.tracks.cd_id
- Bitmap Heap Scan on tracks
(cost=536.76..59707.31 rows=18665 width=4) (actual time=146.222..30958.057
rows=1677 loops=1)
Recheck Cond: (tstitle @@
'''sympathy'''::tsquery)
- Bitmap Index Scan on tstitle_tracks_idx
(cost=0.00..532.09 rows=18665 width=0) (actual time=126.328..126.328 rows=1677
loops=1)
Index Cond: (tstitle @@
'''sympathy'''::tsquery)
- Index Scan using cd_id_key on cd (cost=0.00..8.62 rows=1
width=46) (actual time=20.218..20.219 rows=1 loops=10)
Index Cond: (cd.cd_id = IN_subquery.cd_id)
- Index Scan using cdid_tracks_idx on tracks (cost=0.00..358.08 rows=1197
width=27) (actual time=39.935..42.247 rows=17 loops=10)
Index Cond: (cd.cd_id = public.tracks.cd_id)
Total runtime: 31811.256 ms
(15 rows)
#v-
It gets better when the rows are in memory (down to 10.452 ms), but
Murphy tells me, that the content that I need will never be in memory.
I think I disregarded this variant at first, because it limits the
possibility to restrict the cd artist and title.
I can see how to build one: make a variant of HashAggregate that returns
each input row immediately after hashing it, *if* it isn't a duplicate
of one already in the hash table. But it'd be a lot of work for what
seems a rather specialized need.
D'oh.
Actually, I hoped to find an alternative, that does not involve
DISTINCT.
Best Regards,
Tilo
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at
http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
Re: [PERFORM] fast DISTINCT or EXIST
Tilo Buschmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Arjen van der Meijden [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
SELECT ... FROM cd
JOIN tracks ...
WHERE cd.id IN (SELECT DISTINCT cd_id FROM (SELECT t.cd_id FROM tracks t
WHERE t.tstitle @@ plainto_tsquery('simple','education') LIMIT 30)
as foo LIMIT 10)
Unfortunately, the query above will definitely not work correctly, if
someone searches for a or the.
Well, the incorrectness is only that it might deliver fewer than the
hoped-for ten CDs ... but that was a completely arbitrary cutoff anyway,
no? I think in practice this'd give perfectly acceptable results.
Actually, I hoped to find an alternative, that does not involve
DISTINCT.
You could try playing around with GROUP BY rather than DISTINCT; those
are separate code paths and will probably give you different plans.
But I don't think you'll find that GROUP BY does any better on this
particular measure of yielding rows before the full input has been
scanned.
regards, tom lane
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at
http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
Re: [PERFORM] fast DISTINCT or EXIST
On 7-4-2007 18:24 Tilo Buschmann wrote: Unfortunately, the query above will definitely not work correctly, if someone searches for a or the. That are two words you may want to consider not searching on at all. As Tom said, its not very likely to be fixed in PostgreSQL. But you can always consider using application logic (or a pgpsql function, you could even use a set returning function to replace the double-limit subselects in your in-statement) which will automatically fetch more records when the initial guess turns out to be wrong, obviously using something like a NOT IN to remove the initially returned cd.id's for the next batches. Then again, even 'a' or 'the' will not likely be in *all* tracks of a cd, so you can also use the 'average amount of tracks per cd' (about 10 or 11?) as your multiplier rather than my initial 3. Obviously you'll loose performance with each increment of that value. Best regards, Arjen ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
