Re: [PERFORM] Unexpected expensive index scan

2016-09-30 Thread Jim Nasby
On 9/28/16 1:11 PM, Jake Nielsen wrote: Beautiful! After changing the random_page_cost to 1.0 the original query went from ~3.5s to ~35ms. This is exactly the kind of insight I was fishing for in the original post. I'll keep in mind that the query planner is very tunable and has these sorts of ha

Re: [PERFORM] Unexpected expensive index scan

2016-09-28 Thread Jake Nielsen
On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 6:04 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > [ Please don't re-quote the entire damn thread in each followup. Have > some respect for your readers' time, and assume that they have already > seen the previous traffic, or could go look it up if they haven't. > The point of quoting at all is j

Re: [PERFORM] Unexpected expensive index scan

2016-09-28 Thread Tom Lane
[ Please don't re-quote the entire damn thread in each followup. Have some respect for your readers' time, and assume that they have already seen the previous traffic, or could go look it up if they haven't. The point of quoting at all is just to quickly remind people where we are in the discussion

Re: [PERFORM] Unexpected expensive index scan

2016-09-27 Thread Jake Nielsen
On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 6:24 PM, Jake Nielsen wrote: > > > On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 6:03 PM, Jake Nielsen > wrote: > >> >> On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 5:41 PM, Mike Sofen wrote: >> >>> *From:* Jake Nielsen*Sent:* Tuesday, September 27, 2016 5:22 PM >>> >>> >>> the query >>> >>> SELECT * FROM Syn

Re: [PERFORM] Unexpected expensive index scan

2016-09-27 Thread Jake Nielsen
On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 6:03 PM, Jake Nielsen wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 5:41 PM, Mike Sofen wrote: > >> *From:* Jake Nielsen*Sent:* Tuesday, September 27, 2016 5:22 PM >> >> >> the query >> >> SELECT * FROM SyncerEvent WHERE ID > 12468 AND propogatorId NOT IN >> ('"d8130ab9!-66d0!-4

Re: [PERFORM] Unexpected expensive index scan

2016-09-27 Thread Jake Nielsen
On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 5:41 PM, Mike Sofen wrote: > *From:* Jake Nielsen*Sent:* Tuesday, September 27, 2016 5:22 PM > > > the query > > SELECT * FROM SyncerEvent WHERE ID > 12468 AND propogatorId NOT IN > ('"d8130ab9!-66d0!-4f13!-acec!-a9556362f0ad"') AND conflicted != 1 AND > userId = '57dc

Re: [PERFORM] Unexpected expensive index scan

2016-09-27 Thread Mike Sofen
From: Jake NielsenSent: Tuesday, September 27, 2016 5:22 PM the query SELECT * FROM SyncerEvent WHERE ID > 12468 AND propogatorId NOT IN ('"d8130ab9!-66d0!-4f13!-acec!-a9556362f0ad"') AND conflicted != 1 AND userId = '57dc984f1c87461c0967e228' ORDER BY ID LIMIT 4000;^ On Tue, Sep 27, 2

Re: [PERFORM] Unexpected expensive index scan

2016-09-27 Thread Jake Nielsen
Herp, forgot to include the query: SELECT * FROM SyncerEvent WHERE ID > 12468 AND propogatorId NOT IN ('"d8130ab9!-66d0!-4f13!-acec!-a9556362f0ad"') AND conflicted != 1 AND userId = '57dc984f1c87461c0967e228' ORDER BY ID LIMIT 4000;^ On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 5:02 PM, Jake Nielsen wrote: > I've g

[PERFORM] Unexpected expensive index scan

2016-09-27 Thread Jake Nielsen
I've got a query that takes a surprisingly long time to run, and I'm having a really rough time trying to figure it out. Before I get started, here are the specifics of the situation: Here is the table that I'm working with (apologies for spammy indices, I've been throwing shit at the wall)