Here is my thought on why row is not limiting when joined vs why it is limiting
when not joined.
When not joined and where clause is having IN, it is using index
process_activity_process_instance_id_app_id_created_idx which has columns
process_instance_id, created which is in order by and hence no additional
ordering is required and a direct rows limit can be applied here.
When in join condition it has to fetch rows according to filter clause, join
them and then order ( sort node in plan) hence it cannot limit rows while
fetching it first time from the table.
You are also missing pi.user_id = '317079413683604' in exists clause. It is
worth trying to put there and run explain again and see where it takes. But to
your point row limitation cannot happen in case of join as such in the query.
Regards,
Virendra
On Thursday, May 7, 2020, 11:52:00 AM PDT, Amarendra Konda
<amar.vij...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Virendra,
Thanks for your time.
Here is the table and index structure
process_activity
Table "public.process_activity"
Column | Type | Modifiers
--------------------+-----------------------------+----------------------------
process_activity_id | bigint | not null default
next_id()
process_activity_type | smallint | not null
voice_url | text |
process_activity_user_id | bigint | not null
app_id | bigint | not null
process_instance_id | bigint | not null
alias | text | not null
read_by_user | smallint | default 0
source | smallint | default 0
label_category_id | bigint |
label_id | bigint |
csat_response_id | bigint |
process_activity_fragments | jsonb |
created | timestamp without time zone | not null
updated | timestamp without time zone |
rule_id | bigint |
marketing_reply_id | bigint |
delivered_at | timestamp without time zone |
reply_fragments | jsonb |
status_fragment | jsonb |
internal_meta | jsonb |
interaction_id | text |
do_not_translate | boolean |
should_translate | integer |
in_reply_to | jsonb |
Indexes:
"process_activity_pkey" PRIMARY KEY, btree (process_activity_id)
"fki_process_activity_konotor_user_user_id" btree
(process_activity_user_id) WITH (fillfactor='70')
"process_activity_process_instance_id_app_id_created_idx" btree
(process_instance_id, app_id, created) WITH (fillfactor='70')
"process_activity_process_instance_id_app_id_read_by_user_created_idx"
btree (process_instance_id, app_id, read_by_user, created) WITH
(fillfactor='70')
"process_activity_process_instance_id_idx" btree (process_instance_id) WITH
(fillfactor='70')
process_instance
Table "public.process_instance"
Column | Type | Modifiers
-------------------------+-----------------------------+-----------------------------
process_instance_id | bigint | not null default
next_id()
process_instance_alias | text | not null
app_id | bigint | not null
user_id | bigint | not null
Indexes:
"process_instance_pkey" PRIMARY KEY, btree (process_instance_id)
"fki_conv_konotor_user_user_id" btree (user_id) WITH (fillfactor='70')
Regards, Amarendra
On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 12:01 AM Virendra Kumar <viru_7...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Sending table structure with indexes might help little further in understanding.
Regards,
Virendra
On Thursday, May 7, 2020, 11:08:14 AM PDT, Amarendra Konda
<amar.vij...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi David,
In earlier reply, Over looked another condition, hence please ignore that one
Here is the correct one with all the needed conditions. According to the latest
one, exists also not limiting rows from the process_activity table.
EXPLAIN (ANALYZE, COSTS, VERBOSE, BUFFERS) SELECT pa.process_activity_id AS
pa_process_activity_id FROM process_activity pa WHERE pa.app_id =
'126502930200650' AND pa.created > '1970-01-01 00:00:00' AND EXISTS ( SELECT 1
FROM process_instance pi where pi.app_id = pa.app_id AND pi.process_instance_id
= pa.process_instance_id AND pi.user_id = '137074931866340') ORDER BY
pa.process_instance_id, pa.created limit 50;
QUERY PLAN
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------
Limit (cost=1079.44..1079.52 rows=32 width=24) (actual time=85.747..85.777
rows=50 loops=1)
Output: pa.process_activity_id, pa.process_instance_id, pa.created
Buffers: shared hit=43070
-> Sort (cost=1079.44..1079.52 rows=32 width=24) (actual
time=85.745..85.759 rows=50 loops=1)
Output: pa.process_activity_id, pa.process_instance_id, pa.created
Sort Key: pa.process_instance_id, pa.created
Sort Method: top-N heapsort Memory: 28kB
Buffers: shared hit=43070
-> Nested Loop (cost=1.14..1078.64 rows=32 width=24) (actual
time=0.025..72.115 rows=47011 loops=1)
Output: pa.process_activity_id, pa.process_instance_id,
pa.created
Buffers: shared hit=43070
-> Index Scan using fki_conv_konotor_user_user_id on
public.process_instance pi (cost=0.43..2.66 rows=1 width=16) (actual
time=0.010..0.015 rows=2 loops=1)
Output: pi.app_id, pi.process_instance_id
Index Cond: (c.user_id = '137074931866340'::bigint)
Filter: (c.app_id = '126502930200650'::bigint)
Buffers: shared hit=5
-> Index Scan using
process_activity_process_instance_id_app_id_created_idx on
public.process_activity pa (cost=0.70..1061.62 rows=1436 width=32) (actual
time=0.011..20.320 rows=23506 loops=2)
Output: pa.process_activity_id, pa.process_activity_type,
pa.voice_url, pa.process_activity_user_id, pa.app_id, pa.process_instance_id,
pa.alias, pa.read_by_user, pa.source, pa.label_category_id, pa.label_id,
pa.csat_respons
e_id, pa.process_activity_fragments, pa.created, pa.updated, pa.rule_id,
pa.marketing_reply_id, pa.delivered_at, pa.reply_fragments, pa.status_fragment,
pa.internal_meta, pa.interaction_id, pa.do_not_translate, pa.should_tr
anslate, pa.in_reply_to
Index Cond: ((m.process_instance_id =
pi.process_instance_id) AND (m.app_id = '126502930200650'::bigint) AND
(m.created > '1970-01-01 00:00:00'::timestamp without time zone))
Buffers: shared hit=43065
Planning time: 0.455 ms
Execution time: 85.830 ms
On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 11:19 PM Amarendra Konda <amar.vij...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi David,
Thanks for the reply.This has optimized number of rows.
Can you please explain, why it is getting more columns in output, even though
we have asked for only one column ?
EXPLAIN (ANALYZE, COSTS, VERBOSE, BUFFERS) SELECT pa.process_activity_id AS
pa_process_activity_id FROM process_activity pa WHERE pa.app_id =
'126502930200650' AND pa.created > '1970-01-01 00:00:00' AND EXISTS ( SELECT 1
FROM process_instance pi where pi.app_id = pa.app_id AND pi.user_id =
'137074931866340') ORDER BY pa.process_instance_id,m.created limit 50;
QUERY PLAN
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------
Limit (cost=1.14..37.39 rows=50 width=24) (actual time=821.283..891.629
rows=50 loops=1)
Output: pa.process_activity_id, pa.process_instance_id, pa.created
Buffers: shared hit=274950
-> Nested Loop Semi Join (cost=1.14..266660108.78 rows=367790473 width=24)
(actual time=821.282..891.607 rows=50 loops=1)
Output: pa.process_activity_id, pa.process_instance_id, pa.created
Buffers: shared hit=274950
-> Index Scan using
process_activity_process_instance_id_app_id_created_idx on
public.process_activity pa (cost=0.70..262062725.21 rows=367790473 width=32)
(actual time=821.253..891.517 rows=50 loops=1)
Output: pa.process_activity_id, pa.process_activity_type,
pa.voice_url, pa.process_activity_user_id, pa.app_id, pa.process_instance_id,
pa.alias, pa.read_by_user, pa.source, pa.label_category_id, pa.label_id,
pa.csat_response_id,
m.process_activity_fragments, pa.created, pa.updated, pa.rule_id,
pa.marketing_reply_id, pa.delivered_at, pa.reply_fragments, pa.status_fragment,
pa.internal_meta, pa.interaction_id, pa.do_not_translate, pa.should_translat
e, pa.in_reply_to
Index Cond: ((m.app_id = '126502930200650'::bigint) AND
(m.created > '1970-01-01 00:00:00'::timestamp without time zone))
Buffers: shared hit=274946
-> Materialize (cost=0.43..2.66 rows=1 width=8) (actual
time=0.001..0.001 rows=1 loops=50)
Output: pi.app_id
Buffers: shared hit=4
-> Index Scan using fki_conv_konotor_user_user_id on
public.process_instance pi (cost=0.43..2.66 rows=1 width=8) (actual
time=0.020..0.020 rows=1 loops=1)
Output: pi.app_id
Index Cond: (pi.user_id = '137074931866340'::bigint)
Filter: (pi.app_id = '126502930200650'::bigint)
Buffers: shared hit=4
Planning time: 0.297 ms
Execution time: 891.686 ms
(20 rows)
On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 9:17 PM David G. Johnston <david.g.johns...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 7:40 AM Adrian Klaver <adrian.kla...@aklaver.com> wrote:
On 5/7/20 4:19 AM, Amarendra Konda wrote:
> Hi,
>
> PostgreSQL version : PostgreSQL 9.6.2 on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, compiled
> by gcc (GCC) 4.8.3 20140911 (Red Hat 4.8.3-9), 64-bit
>
> We have noticed huge difference interms of execution plan ( response
> time) , When we pass the direct values Vs inner query to IN clause.
>
> High level details of the use case are as follows
>
> * As part of the SQL there are 2 tables named Process_instance
> (master) and Process_activity ( child)
> * Wanted to fetch TOP 50 rows from Process_activity table for the
> given values of the Process_instance.
> * When we used Inner Join / Inner query ( query1) between parent
> table and child table , LIMIT is not really taking in to account.
> Instead it is fetching more rows and columns that required, and
> finally limiting the result
It is doing what you told it to do which is SELECT all
process_instance_i's for user_id='317079413683604' and app_id =
'427380312000560' and then filtering further. I am going to guess that
if you run the inner query alone you will find it returns ~23496 rows.
You might have better results if you an actual join between
process_activity and process_instance. Something like below(obviously
not tested):
What the OP seems to want is a semi-join:
(not tested)
SELECT pa.process_activity_id FROM process_activity pa WHERE pa.app_id =
'427380312000560' AND pa.created > '1970-01-01 00:00:00'AND EXISTS ( SELECT 1
FROM process_instance pi WHERE pi.app_id = pa.app_id AND pi.user_id =
'317079413683604')
ORDER BY pa.process_instance_id,pa.created limit 50;
I'm unsure exactly how this will impact the plan choice but it should be an
improvement, and in any case more correctly defines what it is you are looking
for.
David J.
