Re: [PERFORM] pl/pgsql functions outperforming sql ones?
2012/1/31 Carlo Stonebanks : > Pavel, thank you very much for your explanation. > > Is it possible to define under what conditions that sql procs will > outperform plpgsql ones, and vice-versa? yes, little bit :) when inlining is possible, then SQL function will be faster - typical use case is simple scalar functions (with nonvolatile real parameters). Regards Pavel > > -Original Message- -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
Re: [PERFORM] Why should such a simple query over indexed columns be so slow?
> Looking at > http://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/runtime-config-query.html#GUC-RANDOM-PAGE-COSTI > wonder if I should try reducing random_page_cost? Yes, and I should speak to Heroku about reducing it by default. RPC represents the ratio between the cost of a sequential lookup of a single row vs. the cost of a random lookup. On standard spinning media on a dedicated server 4.0 is a pretty good estimate of this. However, you are running on shared storage in a cloud, which has different math. > Something that might help when it comes to advice on performance tuning is > that this database is used only for analytics. It's essentially a partial > replication of a production (document-oriented) database. So a lot of > normal operations that might employ a series of sequential fetches may not > actually be the norm in my case. Rather, I'm doing a lot of counts on data > that is typically randomly distributed. In that case, you might consider increasing default_statistics_target to 1000 and ANALYZEing your whole database. That increases the sample size for the database statstics collector, and most of the time will result in somewhat better plans on large tables and data with skewed distributions. This is not something which Heroku would do as standard, since most of their users are doing basic transactional webapps. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
Re: [PERFORM] pl/pgsql functions outperforming sql ones?
Pavel, thank you very much for your explanation. Is it possible to define under what conditions that sql procs will outperform plpgsql ones, and vice-versa? -Original Message- From: Pavel Stehule [mailto:pavel.steh...@gmail.com] Sent: January 30, 2012 2:57 AM To: Carlo Stonebanks Cc: Merlin Moncure; pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: [PERFORM] pl/pgsql functions outperforming sql ones? Hello 2012/1/30 Carlo Stonebanks : > Pavel, are you saying that the code of the stored function is actually being > added to the SQL query, instead of a call to it? For example, I have seen > this: > > SELECT myVar > FROM myTable > WHERE myVar > 0 AND myFunc(myVar) > > And seen the SQL body of myVar appended to the outer query: > > ... Filter: SELECT CASE WHERE myVar < 10 THEN true ELSE false END > > Is this what we are talking about? Two questions: yes - it is SQL function "inlining" > > 1) Is this also done when the function is called as a SELECT column; > e.g. would: > SELECT myFunc(myVar) AS result > - become: > SELECT ( > SELECT CASE WHERE myVar < 10 THEN true ELSE false END > ) AS result? > yes CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION public.fx(integer, integer) RETURNS integer LANGUAGE sql AS $function$ select coalesce($1, $2) $function$ postgres=# explain verbose select fx(random()::int, random()::int); QUERY PLAN -- Result (cost=0.00..0.02 rows=1 width=0) Output: COALESCE((random())::integer, (random())::integer) (2 rows) > 2) Does that not bypass the benefits of IMMUTABLE? > no - optimizator works with expanded query - usually is preferred style a writing SQL functions without flags, because optimizer can work with definition of SQL function and can set well flags. SQL function is not black box for optimizer like plpgsql does. And SQL optimizer chooses a inlining or some other optimizations. Sometimes explicit flags are necessary, but usually not for scalar SQL functions. postgres=# create or replace function public.fxs(int) postgres-# returns setof int as $$ postgres$# select * from generate_series(1,$1) postgres$# $$ language sql; CREATE FUNCTION postgres=# explain verbose select * from fxs(10); QUERY PLAN --- Function Scan on public.fxs (cost=0.25..10.25 rows=1000 width=4) Output: fxs Function Call: fxs(10) (3 rows) postgres=# create or replace function public.fxs(int) returns setof int as $$ select * from generate_series(1,$1) $$ language sql IMMUTABLE; CREATE FUNCTION postgres=# explain verbose select * from fxs(10); QUERY PLAN --- Function Scan on pg_catalog.generate_series (cost=0.00..10.00 rows=1000 width=4) Output: generate_series.generate_series Function Call: generate_series(1, 10) -- inlined query (3 rows) Regards Pavel Stehule > > > -Original Message- > From: pgsql-performance-ow...@postgresql.org > [mailto:pgsql-performance-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Pavel Stehule > Sent: January 28, 2012 1:38 AM > To: Carlo Stonebanks > Cc: Merlin Moncure; pgsql-performance@postgresql.org > Subject: Re: [PERFORM] pl/pgsql functions outperforming sql ones? > > 2012/1/27 Carlo Stonebanks : >> Yes, I did test it - i.e. I ran the functions on their own as I had > always >> noticed a minor difference between EXPLAIN ANALYZE results and direct > query >> calls. >> >> Interesting, so sql functions DON'T cache plans? Will plan-caching be of > any >> benefit to SQL that makes no reference to any tables? The SQL is emulating >> the straight non-set-oriented procedural logic of the original plpgsql. >> > > It is not necessary usually - simple SQL functions are merged to outer > query - there are e few cases where this optimization cannot be > processed and then there are performance lost. > > For example this optimization is not possible (sometimes) when some > parameter is volatile > > Regards > > Pavel Stehule > > -- > Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance > -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
Re: [PERFORM] Why should such a simple query over indexed columns be so slow?
Got it (with a little bit of klutzing around). :) Thanks! On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 2:24 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote: > On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 3:19 PM, Scott Marlowe > wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 2:55 PM, Alessandro Gagliardi > > wrote: > >> I set random_page_cost to 2 (with enable_seqscan on) and get the same > >> performance I got with enable_seqscan off. > >> So far so good. Now I just need to figure out how to set it globally. > :-/ > > > > alter database set random_page_cost=2.0; > > That should be: > > alter database dbnamegoeshere set random_page_cost=2.0; > > > > -- > To understand recursion, one must first understand recursion. >
Re: [PERFORM] Why should such a simple query over indexed columns be so slow?
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 3:19 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote: > On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 2:55 PM, Alessandro Gagliardi > wrote: >> I set random_page_cost to 2 (with enable_seqscan on) and get the same >> performance I got with enable_seqscan off. >> So far so good. Now I just need to figure out how to set it globally. :-/ > > alter database set random_page_cost=2.0; That should be: alter database dbnamegoeshere set random_page_cost=2.0; -- To understand recursion, one must first understand recursion. -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
Re: [PERFORM] Why should such a simple query over indexed columns be so slow?
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 2:55 PM, Alessandro Gagliardi wrote: > I set random_page_cost to 2 (with enable_seqscan on) and get the same > performance I got with enable_seqscan off. > So far so good. Now I just need to figure out how to set it globally. :-/ alter database set random_page_cost=2.0; -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
Re: [PERFORM] Why should such a simple query over indexed columns be so slow?
I set random_page_cost to 2 (with enable_seqscan on) and get the same performance I got with enable_seqscan off. So far so good. Now I just need to figure out how to set it globally. :-/ On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 1:45 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote: > On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 2:39 PM, Alessandro Gagliardi > wrote: > > Looking > > at > http://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/runtime-config-query.html#GUC-RANDOM-PAGE-COST > > I wonder if I should try reducing random_page_cost? > > > > Yes try lowering it. Generally speaking, random page cost should > always be >= seq page cost. Start with a number between 1.5 and 2.0 > to start with and see if that helps. You can make it "sticky" for > your user or database with alter user or alter database... >
Re: [PERFORM] Why should such a simple query over indexed columns be so slow?
Pretty sure. I just ran the same query twice in a row with enable_seqscan=true and the "actual time" was on the order of 42 seconds both times. With enable_seqscan=false, it was on the order 3 seconds. Going back to enable_seqscan=true, it's back to 42 seconds. Unless you're saying that enable_seqscan is determining whether or not the data is being cached On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 1:13 PM, Fernando Hevia wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 17:35, Alessandro Gagliardi > wrote: > >> Well that was a *lot* faster: >> >> "HashAggregate (cost=156301.82..156301.83 rows=2 width=26) (actual >> time=2692.806..2692.807 rows=2 loops=1)" >> " -> Bitmap Heap Scan on blocks (cost=14810.54..155828.95 rows=472871 >> width=26) (actual time=289.828..1593.893 rows=575186 loops=1)" >> "Recheck Cond: (created > '2012-01-29 00:00:00+00'::timestamp >> with time zone)" >> "Filter: (shared IS FALSE)" >> "-> Bitmap Index Scan on blocks_created_idx >> (cost=0.00..14786.89 rows=550404 width=0) (actual time=277.407..277.407 >> rows=706663 loops=1)" >> " Index Cond: (created > '2012-01-29 00:00:00+00'::timestamp >> with time zone)" >> "Total runtime: 2693.107 ms" >> >> > U sure the new timing isn't owed to cached data? If I am reading it > correctly, from the latest explain you posted the Index Scan shouldn't have > made a difference as it is reporting pretty much all rows in the table have > created > 'yesterday'. > If the number of rows with created < 'yesterday' isn't significant (~ over > 25% with default config) a full scan will be chosen and it will probably be > the better choice too. > > >
Re: [PERFORM] Why should such a simple query over indexed columns be so slow?
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 2:39 PM, Alessandro Gagliardi wrote: > On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 1:25 PM, Josh Berkus wrote: >> >> You can do "SHOW random_page_cost" yourself right now, too. >> > 4 > > I also tried "SHOW seq_page_cost" and that's 1. > > Looking > at http://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/runtime-config-query.html#GUC-RANDOM-PAGE-COST > I wonder if I should try reducing random_page_cost? > > Something that might help when it comes to advice on performance tuning is > that this database is used only for analytics. It's essentially a partial > replication of a production (document-oriented) database. So a lot of normal > operations that might employ a series of sequential fetches may not actually > be the norm in my case. Rather, I'm doing a lot of counts on data that is > typically randomly distributed. Yes try lowering it. Generally speaking, random page cost should always be >= seq page cost. Start with a number between 1.5 and 2.0 to start with and see if that helps. You can make it "sticky" for your user or database with alter user or alter database... -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
Re: [PERFORM] Why should such a simple query over indexed columns be so slow?
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 1:25 PM, Josh Berkus wrote: > You can do "SHOW random_page_cost" yourself right now, too. > > 4 I also tried "SHOW seq_page_cost" and that's 1. Looking at http://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/runtime-config-query.html#GUC-RANDOM-PAGE-COSTI wonder if I should try reducing random_page_cost? Something that might help when it comes to advice on performance tuning is that this database is used only for analytics. It's essentially a partial replication of a production (document-oriented) database. So a lot of normal operations that might employ a series of sequential fetches may not actually be the norm in my case. Rather, I'm doing a lot of counts on data that is typically randomly distributed. Thanks, -Alessandro
Re: [PERFORM] Why should such a simple query over indexed columns be so slow?
On 1/30/12 12:59 PM, Claudio Freire wrote: > On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 5:55 PM, Alessandro Gagliardi > wrote: >> Hm. Well, it looks like setting enable_seqscan=false is session specific, so >> it seems like I can use it with this query alone; but it sounds like even if >> that works, it's a bad practice. (Is that true?) > > Yep The issue with that is that the enable_seqscan setting is not limited to that one table in that query, and won't change over time. So by all means use it as a hotfix right now, but it's not a long-term solution to your problem. > >> My effective_cache_size is 153kB That seems appropriate for the Ronin; I'll test one out and see what random_page_cost is set to as well, possibly Heroku needs to adjust the basic template for the Ronin. For Heroku, we want to favor index scans a bit more than you would on regular hardware because the underlying storage is Amazon, which has good seeks but crap throughput. You can do "SHOW random_page_cost" yourself right now, too. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
Re: [PERFORM] Why should such a simple query over indexed columns be so slow?
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 17:35, Alessandro Gagliardi wrote: > Well that was a *lot* faster: > > "HashAggregate (cost=156301.82..156301.83 rows=2 width=26) (actual > time=2692.806..2692.807 rows=2 loops=1)" > " -> Bitmap Heap Scan on blocks (cost=14810.54..155828.95 rows=472871 > width=26) (actual time=289.828..1593.893 rows=575186 loops=1)" > "Recheck Cond: (created > '2012-01-29 00:00:00+00'::timestamp > with time zone)" > "Filter: (shared IS FALSE)" > "-> Bitmap Index Scan on blocks_created_idx (cost=0.00..14786.89 > rows=550404 width=0) (actual time=277.407..277.407 rows=706663 loops=1)" > " Index Cond: (created > '2012-01-29 00:00:00+00'::timestamp > with time zone)" > "Total runtime: 2693.107 ms" > > U sure the new timing isn't owed to cached data? If I am reading it correctly, from the latest explain you posted the Index Scan shouldn't have made a difference as it is reporting pretty much all rows in the table have created > 'yesterday'. If the number of rows with created < 'yesterday' isn't significant (~ over 25% with default config) a full scan will be chosen and it will probably be the better choice too.
Re: [PERFORM] Why should such a simple query over indexed columns be so slow?
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 5:55 PM, Alessandro Gagliardi wrote: > Hm. Well, it looks like setting enable_seqscan=false is session specific, so > it seems like I can use it with this query alone; but it sounds like even if > that works, it's a bad practice. (Is that true?) Yep > My effective_cache_size is 153kB Um... barring some really bizarre GUC setting, I cannot imagine how it could be preferring the sequential scan. Maybe some of the more knowedgeable folks has a hint. In the meanwhile, you can use the seqscan stuff on that query alone. Be sure to use it on that query alone - ie, re-enable it afterwards, or discard the connection. -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
Re: [PERFORM] Why should such a simple query over indexed columns be so slow?
Hm. Well, it looks like setting enable_seqscan=false is session specific, so it seems like I can use it with this query alone; but it sounds like even if that works, it's a bad practice. (Is that true?) My effective_cache_size is 153kB On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 12:50 PM, Claudio Freire wrote: > On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 5:35 PM, Alessandro Gagliardi > wrote: > > To answer your (non-)question about Heroku, it's a cloud service, so I > don't > > host PostgreSQL myself. I'm not sure how much I can mess with things like > > GUC since I don't even have access to the "postgres" database on the > server. > > I am a long time SQL user but new to Postgres so I welcome suggestions on > > where to start with that sort of thing. Setting enable_seqscan=false > made a > > huge difference, so I think I'll start there. > > It's not a good idea to abuse of the enable_stuff settings, they're > for debugging, not for general use. In particular, disable sequential > scans everywhere can have a disastrous effect on performance. > > It sounds as if PG had a misconfigured effective_cache_size. What does > "show effective_cache_size" tell you? >
Re: [PERFORM] Why should such a simple query over indexed columns be so slow?
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 5:35 PM, Alessandro Gagliardi wrote: > To answer your (non-)question about Heroku, it's a cloud service, so I don't > host PostgreSQL myself. I'm not sure how much I can mess with things like > GUC since I don't even have access to the "postgres" database on the server. > I am a long time SQL user but new to Postgres so I welcome suggestions on > where to start with that sort of thing. Setting enable_seqscan=false made a > huge difference, so I think I'll start there. It's not a good idea to abuse of the enable_stuff settings, they're for debugging, not for general use. In particular, disable sequential scans everywhere can have a disastrous effect on performance. It sounds as if PG had a misconfigured effective_cache_size. What does "show effective_cache_size" tell you? -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
Re: [PERFORM] Why should such a simple query over indexed columns be so slow?
Well that was a *lot* faster: "HashAggregate (cost=156301.82..156301.83 rows=2 width=26) (actual time=2692.806..2692.807 rows=2 loops=1)" " -> Bitmap Heap Scan on blocks (cost=14810.54..155828.95 rows=472871 width=26) (actual time=289.828..1593.893 rows=575186 loops=1)" "Recheck Cond: (created > '2012-01-29 00:00:00+00'::timestamp with time zone)" "Filter: (shared IS FALSE)" "-> Bitmap Index Scan on blocks_created_idx (cost=0.00..14786.89 rows=550404 width=0) (actual time=277.407..277.407 rows=706663 loops=1)" " Index Cond: (created > '2012-01-29 00:00:00+00'::timestamp with time zone)" "Total runtime: 2693.107 ms" To answer your (non-)question about Heroku, it's a cloud service, so I don't host PostgreSQL myself. I'm not sure how much I can mess with things like GUC since I don't even have access to the "postgres" database on the server. I am a long time SQL user but new to Postgres so I welcome suggestions on where to start with that sort of thing. Setting enable_seqscan=false made a huge difference, so I think I'll start there. Thank you very much! -Alessandro On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 11:24 AM, Claudio Freire wrote: > On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 4:13 PM, Alessandro Gagliardi > wrote: > > So, here's the query: > > > > SELECT private, COUNT(block_id) FROM blocks WHERE created > 'yesterday' > AND > > shared IS FALSE GROUP BY private > > > > What confuses me is that though this is a largish table (millions of > rows) > > with constant writes, the query is over indexed columns of types > timestamp > > and boolean so I would expect it to be very fast. The clause where > created > > > 'yesterday' is there mostly to speed it up, but apparently it doesn't > help > > much. > > The number of rows touched is ~0.5M, and is correctly estimated, which > would lead me to believe PG estimates the index plan to be slower. > > You could try by executing first "set enable_seqscan=false;" and then > your query with explain analyze again. You'll probably get an index > scan, and you'll see both how it performs and how PG thought it would > perform. Any mismatch between the two probably means you'll have to > change the planner tunables (the x_tuple_cost ones) to better match > your hardware. > > > > As for Hardware: I'm using Heroku's "Ronin" setup which involves 1.7 GB > > Cache. Beyond that I don't really know. > snip > > As for GUC Settings: Again, I don't know what this is. Whatever Heroku > > defaults to is what I'm using. > > And there's your problem. Without knowing/understanding those, you > won't get anywhere. I don't know what Heroku is, but you should find > out both hardware details and PG configuration details. > > > As for Maintenance Setup: I let Heroku handle that, so I again, I don't > > really know. FWIW though, vacuuming should not really be an issue (as I > > understand it) since I don't really do any updates or deletions. It's > pretty > > much all inserts and selects. > > Maintainance also includes analyzing the table, to gather stats that > feed the optimizer, and it's very important to keep the stats > accurate. You can do it manually - just perform an ANALYZE. However, > the plan doesn't show any serious mismatch between expected and actual > rowcounts, which suggests stats aren't your problem. >
Re: [PERFORM] How to improve insert speed with index on text column
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 9:46 AM, Saurabh wrote: > Thank you for the information. > > Schema of table is: > > ID bigint > company_name text > data_set text > time timestamp > Date date > > Length of company_name is not known so it is of datatype text. I need > to build the index on company_name and ID. And then insert the > records. I can not create the index after insertion because user can > search the data as well while insertion. > > Machine is of 8 core, os centos6 and 8 GB of RAM. > > Here is my configuration: > > shared_buffers = 32MB That is very small for your server. I'd use at least 512MB, and maybe 2GB > wal_buffers = 1024KB If you are using 9.1, I would have this set to the default of -1 and let the database decide for itself what to use. -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
Re: [PERFORM] Why should such a simple query over indexed columns be so slow?
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 4:13 PM, Alessandro Gagliardi wrote: > So, here's the query: > > SELECT private, COUNT(block_id) FROM blocks WHERE created > 'yesterday' AND > shared IS FALSE GROUP BY private > > What confuses me is that though this is a largish table (millions of rows) > with constant writes, the query is over indexed columns of types timestamp > and boolean so I would expect it to be very fast. The clause where created > > 'yesterday' is there mostly to speed it up, but apparently it doesn't help > much. The number of rows touched is ~0.5M, and is correctly estimated, which would lead me to believe PG estimates the index plan to be slower. You could try by executing first "set enable_seqscan=false;" and then your query with explain analyze again. You'll probably get an index scan, and you'll see both how it performs and how PG thought it would perform. Any mismatch between the two probably means you'll have to change the planner tunables (the x_tuple_cost ones) to better match your hardware. > As for Hardware: I'm using Heroku's "Ronin" setup which involves 1.7 GB > Cache. Beyond that I don't really know. snip > As for GUC Settings: Again, I don't know what this is. Whatever Heroku > defaults to is what I'm using. And there's your problem. Without knowing/understanding those, you won't get anywhere. I don't know what Heroku is, but you should find out both hardware details and PG configuration details. > As for Maintenance Setup: I let Heroku handle that, so I again, I don't > really know. FWIW though, vacuuming should not really be an issue (as I > understand it) since I don't really do any updates or deletions. It's pretty > much all inserts and selects. Maintainance also includes analyzing the table, to gather stats that feed the optimizer, and it's very important to keep the stats accurate. You can do it manually - just perform an ANALYZE. However, the plan doesn't show any serious mismatch between expected and actual rowcounts, which suggests stats aren't your problem. -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
[PERFORM] Why should such a simple query over indexed columns be so slow?
So, here's the query: SELECT private, COUNT(block_id) FROM blocks WHERE created > 'yesterday' AND shared IS FALSE GROUP BY private What confuses me is that though this is a largish table (millions of rows) with constant writes, the query is over indexed columns of types timestamp and boolean so I would expect it to be very fast. The clause where created > 'yesterday' is there mostly to speed it up, but apparently it doesn't help much. Here's the *Full Table and Index Schema*: CREATE TABLE blocks ( block_id character(24) NOT NULL, user_id character(24) NOT NULL, created timestamp with time zone, locale character varying, shared boolean, private boolean, moment_type character varying NOT NULL, user_agent character varying, inserted timestamp without time zone NOT NULL DEFAULT now(), networks character varying[], lnglat point, CONSTRAINT blocks_pkey PRIMARY KEY (block_id ) ) WITH ( OIDS=FALSE ); CREATE INDEX blocks_created_idx ON blocks USING btree (created DESC NULLS LAST); CREATE INDEX blocks_lnglat_idx ON blocks USING gist (lnglat ); CREATE INDEX blocks_networks_idx ON blocks USING btree (networks ); CREATE INDEX blocks_private_idx ON blocks USING btree (private ); CREATE INDEX blocks_shared_idx ON blocks USING btree (shared ); Here's the results from *EXPLAIN ANALYZE:* "HashAggregate (cost=156619.01..156619.02 rows=2 width=26) (actual time=43131.154..43131.156 rows=2 loops=1)" *" -> Seq Scan on blocks (cost=0.00..156146.14 rows=472871 width=26) (actual time=274.881..42124.505 rows=562888 loops=1)" **"Filter: ((shared IS FALSE) AND (created > '2012-01-29 00:00:00+00'::timestamp with time zone))" **"Total runtime: 43131.221 ms"* I'm using *Postgres version:* 9.0.5 (courtesy of Heroku) As for *History:* I've only recently started using this query, so there really isn't any. As for *Hardware*: I'm using Heroku's "Ronin" setup which involves 1.7 GB Cache. Beyond that I don't really know. As for *Maintenance Setup*: I let Heroku handle that, so I again, I don't really know. FWIW though, vacuuming should not really be an issue (as I understand it) since I don't really do any updates or deletions. It's pretty much all inserts and selects. As for *WAL Configuration*: I'm afraid I don't even know what that is. The query is normally run from a Python web server though the above explain was run using pgAdmin3, though I doubt that's relevant. As for *GUC Settings*: Again, I don't know what this is. Whatever Heroku defaults to is what I'm using. Thank you in advance! -Alessandro Gagliardi
Re: [PERFORM] How to improve insert speed with index on text column
On 1/30/2012 3:27 AM, Saurabh wrote: Hi all, I am using Postgresql database for our project and doing some performance testing. We need to insert millions of record with indexed columns. We have 5 columns in table. I created index on integer only then performance is good but when I created index on text column as well then the performance reduced to 1/8th times. My question is how I can improve performance when inserting data using index on text column? Thanks, Saurabh Do it in a single transaction, and use COPY. -Andy -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
Re: [PERFORM] How to improve insert speed with index on text column
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 2:46 PM, Saurabh wrote: > max_connections = 100 > shared_buffers = 32MB > wal_buffers = 1024KB > checkpoint_segments = 3 That's a default config isn't it? You'd do well to try and optimize it for your system. The defaults are really, reeallly conservative. You should also consider normalizing. I'm assuming company_name could be company_id ? (ie: each will have many rows). Otherwise I cannot see how you'd expect to be *constantly* inserting millions of rows. If it's a one-time initialization thing, just drop the indices and recreate them as you've been suggested. If you create new records all the time, I'd bet you'll also have many rows with the same company_name, so normalizing would be a clear win. -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
Re: [PERFORM] How to improve insert speed with index on text column
Thank you for the information. Schema of table is: ID bigint company_name text data_settext time timestamp Date date Length of company_name is not known so it is of datatype text. I need to build the index on company_name and ID. And then insert the records. I can not create the index after insertion because user can search the data as well while insertion. Machine is of 8 core, os centos6 and 8 GB of RAM. Here is my configuration: max_connections = 100 shared_buffers = 32MB wal_buffers = 1024KB checkpoint_segments = 3 -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
Re: [PERFORM] How to improve insert speed with index on text column
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 1:27 AM, Saurabh wrote: > Hi all, > > I am using Postgresql database for our project and doing some > performance testing. We need to insert millions of record with indexed > columns. We have 5 columns in table. I created index on integer only > then performance is good but when I created index on text column as > well then the performance reduced to 1/8th times. Inserting into a indexed table causes a lot of random access to the underlying index (unless the data is inserted in an order which corresponds to the index order of all indexes, which is not likely to happen with multiple indexes). As soon as your indexes don't fit in cache, your performance will collapse. What if you don't have the integer index but just the text? What is the average length of the data in the text field? Is your system CPU limited or IO limited during the load? > My question is how I > can improve performance when inserting data using index on text > column? The only "magic" answer is to drop the index and rebuild after the insert. If that doesn't work for you, then you have to identify your bottleneck and fix it. That can't be done with just the information you provide. Cheers, Jeff -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
Re: [PERFORM] pl/pgsql functions outperforming sql ones?
Update: The main stored function in question and all of its sub sub-functions were recoded to new pure sql functions. I then stub tested the sub functions sql vs. plpgsql. Here were the results for new sql vs old plpgsql: Individual sub functions tested 20-30% faster But the main function calling new sql sub functions ran 100% slower So I tried this: I modified the old plpgsql function to call the new sql sub functions. THAT ran 20-30% faster then the unmodified version. That modified function is listed below. All the functions ending in 2 are the new SQL versions. Any thoughts or insight would be much appreciated. Carlo CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION mdx_lib.lex_compare_candidate3(character varying, character varying) RETURNS numeric AS $BODY$ /* Rate two strings candidacy for lex_compare. param 1: first string to compare param 2: 2nd string to compare returns: numeric result like mdx_lib.lex_distance 0 is a failure, 1 a perfect match */ declare str1 varchar = $1; str2 varchar = $2; acro1 varchar; acro2 varchar; str_dist numeric; acro_dist numeric; result numeric; begin if str1 = str2 then result = 0; else str1 = lower(regexp_replace(str1, '[^[:alnum:]]', '', 'g')); str2 = lower(regexp_replace(str2, '[^[:alnum:]]', '', 'g')); if str1 = str2 then result = 0.1; else str_dist = mdx_lib.lex_distance2(str1, str2); acro1 = mdx_lib.lex_acronym2(str1); acro2 = mdx_lib.lex_acronym2(str2); acro_dist = mdx_lib.lex_distance2(acro1, acro2); result = (acro_dist + (str_dist * 2)) / 2; end if; end if; result = 1 - result; if result < 0 then result = 0; end if; return result; end; $BODY$ LANGUAGE plpgsql IMMUTABLE COST 100; -Original Message- From: pgsql-performance-ow...@postgresql.org [mailto:pgsql-performance-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Pavel Stehule Sent: January 28, 2012 1:38 AM To: Carlo Stonebanks Cc: Merlin Moncure; pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: [PERFORM] pl/pgsql functions outperforming sql ones? 2012/1/27 Carlo Stonebanks : > Yes, I did test it - i.e. I ran the functions on their own as I had always > noticed a minor difference between EXPLAIN ANALYZE results and direct query > calls. > > Interesting, so sql functions DON'T cache plans? Will plan-caching be of any > benefit to SQL that makes no reference to any tables? The SQL is emulating > the straight non-set-oriented procedural logic of the original plpgsql. > It is not necessary usually - simple SQL functions are merged to outer query - there are e few cases where this optimization cannot be processed and then there are performance lost. For example this optimization is not possible (sometimes) when some parameter is volatile Regards Pavel Stehule -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
Re: [PERFORM] How to improve insert speed with index on text column
On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 6:27 AM, Saurabh wrote: > Hi all, > > I am using Postgresql database for our project and doing some > performance testing. We need to insert millions of record with indexed > columns. We have 5 columns in table. I created index on integer only > then performance is good but when I created index on text column as > well then the performance reduced to 1/8th times. My question is how I > can improve performance when inserting data using index on text > column? Post all the necessary details. Schema, table and index sizes, some config... Assuming your text column is a long one (long text), this results in really big indices. Assuming you only search by equality, you can make it a lot faster by hashing. Last time I checked, hash indices were quite limited and performed badly, but I've heard they improved quite a bit. If hash indices don't work for you, you can always build them on top of btree indices by indexing on the expression hash(column) and comparing as hash(value) = hash(column) and value = column. On a table indexed by URL I have, this improved things immensely. Both lookup and insertion times improved. -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
Re: [PERFORM] Postgress is taking lot of CPU on our embedded hardware.
On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 19:11, Jayashankar K B wrote: > But we are stumped by the amount of CPU Postgres is eating up. You still haven't told us *how* slow it actually is and how fast you need it to be? What's your database layout like (tables, columns, indexes, foreign keys)? What do the queries look like that you have problems with? > Our database file is located on a class 2 SD Card. So it is understandable if > there is lot of IO activity and speed is less. Beware that most SD cards are unfit for database write workloads, since they only perform very basic wear levelling (in my experience anyway -- things might have changed, but I'm doubtful). It's a matter of time before you wear out some frequently-written blocks and they start returning I/O errors or corrupted data. If you can spare the disk space, increase checkpoint_segments, as that means at least WAL writes are spread out over a larger number of blocks. (But heap/index writes are still a problem) They can also corrupt your data if you lose power in the middle of a write -- since they use much larger physical block sizes than regular hard drives and it can lose the whole block, which file systems or Postgres are not designed to handle. They also tend to not respect flush/barrier requests that are required for database consistency. Certainly you should do such power-loss tests before you release your product. I've built an embedded platform with a database. Due to disk corruptions, in the end I opted for mounting all file systems read-only and keeping the database only in RAM. > Any configuration settings we could check up? For one, you should reduce max_connections to a more reasonable number -- I'd guess you don't need more than 5 or 10 concurrent connections. Also set synchronous_commit=off; this means that you may lose some committed transactions after power loss, but I think with SD cards all bets are off anyway. Regards, Marti -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
[PERFORM] How to improve insert speed with index on text column
Hi all, I am using Postgresql database for our project and doing some performance testing. We need to insert millions of record with indexed columns. We have 5 columns in table. I created index on integer only then performance is good but when I created index on text column as well then the performance reduced to 1/8th times. My question is how I can improve performance when inserting data using index on text column? Thanks, Saurabh -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
