Hi Alban and others -
On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 1:34 PM, Alban Hertroys <haram...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Anyway, I think you get the sequential scans because the UNION requires to
> sort all the data from both tables to guarantee that the results are unique
> (hence that long Sort Key at the 7th line of explain output).
> For that reason, an index on qdatetime alone won't help much, especially when
> most of your data has qdatetime <= now(), which is probably the case.
>
> It doesn't matter that you only want 10 results from that set, the database
> will first have to figure out which those rows are. That gets more
> complicated because they can come from two different tables, due to the UNION.
>
> Do you really need unique results from that view, or are duplicates
> acceptable (one from each table)? In that case, try UNION ALL instead of
> UNION.
I don't need unique at all!
So I've run "explain analyse" on the old view:
quincy=> explain analyse select to_char(qdatetime, 'YYYY-MM-DD') as
QDATETIME,ID,NAME,CATEGORY,APPSVERSION,OSVERSION,DETAILS,DEVINFO from
quincyview where qdatetime <= now() order by QDATETIME desc offset 10
limit 10;
QUERY PLAN
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------
Limit (cost=559200.14..559200.16 rows=10 width=1172) (actual
time=11311.537..11311.541 rows=10 loops=1)
-> Sort (cost=559200.11..561534.85 rows=933894 width=1172)
(actual time=11311.532..11311.536 rows=20 loops=1)
Sort Key: (to_char(quincyview.qdatetime, 'YYYY-MM-DD'::text))
Sort Method: top-N heapsort Memory: 27kB
-> Subquery Scan quincyview (cost=482985.36..534349.53
rows=933894 width=1172) (actual time=5778.592..9004.
663 rows=934084 loops=1)
-> Unique (cost=482985.36..522675.85 rows=933894
width=254) (actual time=5777.972..7320.816 rows=9340
84 loops=1)
-> Sort (cost=482985.36..485320.09 rows=933894
width=254) (actual time=5777.969..6557.012 rows=
934084 loops=1)
Sort Key: quincynoreset.qdatetime,
quincynoreset.id, quincynoreset.name, quincynoreset.cate
gory, quincynoreset.appsversion, quincynoreset.osversion,
quincynoreset.beta_prog, quincynoreset.catinfo, quincynorese
t.details, quincynoreset.devinfo, quincynoreset.email,
quincynoreset.emailid, quincynoreset.imei, quincynoreset.pin, q
uincynoreset.formfactor, quincynoreset.copied
Sort Method: external merge Disk: 180992kB
-> Append (cost=0.00..55205.73
rows=933894 width=254) (actual time=11.592..2242.501 rows=
934084 loops=1)
-> Seq Scan on quincynoreset
(cost=0.00..39188.71 rows=808567 width=244) (actual ti
me=11.591..1739.695 rows=808647 loops=1)
Filter: (qdatetime <= now())
-> Seq Scan on quincytrack
(cost=0.00..6678.09 rows=125327 width=315) (actual time=
6.801..298.642 rows=125437 loops=1)
Filter: (qdatetime <= now())
Total runtime: 11363.393 ms
(15 rows)
Then I'v dropped and recreated the view with "union all":
quincy=> drop view quincyview ;
DROP VIEW
quincy=> create view quincyview as
quincy-> select
quincy-> qdatetime,
quincy-> id,
quincy-> name,
quincy-> category,
quincy-> appsversion,
quincy-> osversion,
quincy-> beta_prog,
quincy-> catinfo,
quincy-> details,
quincy-> devinfo,
quincy-> email,
quincy-> emailid,
quincy-> imei,
quincy-> pin,
quincy-> formfactor,
quincy-> copied
quincy-> from quincynoreset
quincy-> union all
quincy-> select
quincy-> qdatetime,
quincy-> id,
quincy-> name,
quincy-> category,
quincy-> appsversion,
quincy-> osversion,
quincy-> beta_prog,
quincy-> catinfo,
quincy-> details,
quincy-> devinfo,
quincy-> email,
quincy-> emailid,
quincy-> imei,
quincy-> pin,
quincy-> formfactor,
quincy-> copied
quincy-> from quincytrack
quincy-> ;
CREATE VIEW
Then "explain analyse" on the same select query again:
quincy=> explain analyse select to_char(qdatetime, 'YYYY-MM-DD') as
QDATETIME,ID,NAME,CATEGORY,APPSVERSION,OSVERSION,DETAILS,DEVINFO from
quincyview where qdatetime <= now() order by QDATETIME desc offset 10
limit 10;
QUERY PLAN
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------
Limit (cost=73052.13..73052.16 rows=10 width=111) (actual
time=3782.645..3782.649 rows=10 loops=1)
-> Sort (cost=73052.11..75386.84 rows=933894 width=111) (actual
time=3782.640..3782.643 rows=20 loops=1)
Sort Key: (to_char(quincynoreset.qdatetime, 'YYYY-MM-DD'::text))
Sort Method: top-N heapsort Memory: 27kB
-> Result (cost=0.00..48201.53 rows=933894 width=111)
(actual time=0.039..2660.561 rows=934084 loops=1)
-> Append (cost=0.00..45866.79 rows=933894 width=111)
(actual time=0.021..1239.916 rows=934084 loops=
1)
-> Seq Scan on quincynoreset
(cost=0.00..39188.71 rows=808567 width=95) (actual time=0.020..916
.249 rows=808647 loops=1)
Filter: (qdatetime <= now())
-> Seq Scan on quincytrack (cost=0.00..6678.09
rows=125327 width=215) (actual time=0.030..125.6
49 rows=125437 loops=1)
Filter: (qdatetime <= now())
Total runtime: 3782.759 ms
(11 rows)
Now the script is noticably more enjoyable, thank you!
Do I still need to add indices over the whole union
and what's the syntax please?
I'm also thinking about adding some "pipelining"
(i.e. prefetching 5-10 pages for the HTML-table):
http://datatables.net/release-datatables/examples/server_side/pipeline.html
Regards
Alex
>
> If you do need unique results, then you could create an index on the
> combination of all those fields. That should take out the need for those
> sequential scans.
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
