Обсуждение: [HACKERS] too low cost of Bitmap index scan
Hi
I am trying to fix slow query on PostgreSQL 9.5.4.-> Bitmap Heap Scan on "Zasilka" (cost=5097.39..5670.64 rows=1 width=12) (actual time=62.253..62.400 rows=3 loops=231)
Recheck Cond: (("Dopravce" = "Dopravce_Ridic_1"."ID") AND ("StavDatum" > (now() - '10 days'::interval)))
Filter: (("Stav" = 34) OR ("Stav" = 29) OR ("Stav" = 180) OR ("Stav" = 213) OR ("Stav" = 46) OR (("Produkt" = 33) AND ("Stav" = 179)) OR ((("ZpetnaZasilka" = '-1'::integer) OR ("PrimaZasilka" = '-1'::integer)) AND ("Stav" = 40)))
Rows Removed by Filter: 154
Heap Blocks: exact=22038
-> BitmapAnd (cost=5097.39..5097.39 rows=144 width=0) (actual time=61.725..61.725 rows=0 loops=231)
-> Bitmap Index Scan on "Zasilka_idx_Dopravce" (cost=0.00..134.05 rows=7594 width=0) (actual time=1.030..1.030 rows=7608 loops=231)
Index Cond: ("Dopravce" = "Dopravce_Ridic_1"."ID")
-> Bitmap Index Scan on "Zasilka_idx_StavDatum" (cost=0.00..4963.34 rows=290487 width=0) (actual time=65.505..65.505 rows=354423 loops=210)
Index Cond: ("StavDatum" > (now() - '10 days'::interval))
-> Index Scan using "Dopravce_Ridic_idx_Kod" on "Dopravce_Ridic" "Dopravce_Ridic_1" (cost=0.00..8.02 rows=1 width=4) (actual time=0.008..0.017 rows=1 loops=308)
Index Cond: (("Kod")::text = ("Dopravce_Ridic"."Kod")::text)
Filter: (substr(("Kod")::text, 1, 1) <> 'S'::text)
Rows Removed by Filter: 0
-> Index Scan using "Zasilka_idx_Dopravce" on "Zasilka" (cost=0.00..30489.04 rows=1 width=12) (actual time=15.651..17.187 rows=3 loops=231)
Index Cond: ("Dopravce" = "Dopravce_Ridic_1"."ID")
Filter: (("StavDatum" > (now() - '10 days'::interval)) AND (("Stav" = 34) OR ("Stav" = 29) OR ("Stav" = 180) OR ("Stav" = 213) OR ("Stav" = 46) OR (("Produkt" = 33) AND ("Stav" = 179)) OR ((("ZpetnaZasilka" = '-1'::integer) OR ("PrimaZasilka" = '-1'::integer)) AND ("Stav" = 40))))
Rows Removed by Filter: 7596
On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 3:30 AM, Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> wrote: > -> Bitmap Heap Scan on "Zasilka" (cost=5097.39..5670.64 rows=1 width=12) > (actual time=62.253..62.400 rows=3 loops=231) ... > When I disable bitmap scan, then the query is 6x time faster .... > -> Index Scan using "Zasilka_idx_Dopravce" on "Zasilka" > (cost=0.00..30489.04 rows=1 width=12) (actual time=15.651..17.187 rows=3 > loops=231) > Index Cond: ("Dopravce" = "Dopravce_Ridic_1"."ID") > Filter: (("StavDatum" > (now() - '10 days'::interval)) AND (("Stav" = > 34) OR ("Stav" = 29) OR ("Stav" = 180) OR ("Stav" = 213) OR ("Stav" = 46) OR > (("Produkt" = 33) AND ("Stav" = 179)) OR ((("ZpetnaZasilka" = '-1'::integer) > OR ("PrimaZasilka" = '-1'::integer)) AND ("Stav" = 40)))) > Rows Removed by Filter: 7596 I'm not sure, but my guess would be that the query planner isn't getting a very accurate selectivity estimate for that giant filter condition, and that's why the cost estimate is off. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
2016-12-19 23:28 GMT+01:00 Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>:
On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 3:30 AM, Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> wrote:
> -> Bitmap Heap Scan on "Zasilka" (cost=5097.39..5670.64 rows=1 width=12)
> (actual time=62.253..62.400 rows=3 loops=231)
...
> When I disable bitmap scan, then the query is 6x time faster
....
> -> Index Scan using "Zasilka_idx_Dopravce" on "Zasilka"
> (cost=0.00..30489.04 rows=1 width=12) (actual time=15.651..17.187 rows=3
> loops=231)
> Index Cond: ("Dopravce" = "Dopravce_Ridic_1"."ID")
> Filter: (("StavDatum" > (now() - '10 days'::interval)) AND (("Stav" =
> 34) OR ("Stav" = 29) OR ("Stav" = 180) OR ("Stav" = 213) OR ("Stav" = 46) OR
> (("Produkt" = 33) AND ("Stav" = 179)) OR ((("ZpetnaZasilka" = '-1'::integer)
> OR ("PrimaZasilka" = '-1'::integer)) AND ("Stav" = 40))))
> Rows Removed by Filter: 7596
I'm not sure, but my guess would be that the query planner isn't
getting a very accurate selectivity estimate for that giant filter
condition, and that's why the cost estimate is off.
maybe operator cost is too high?
Regards
Pavel
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 2:13 AM, Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> wrote: > 2016-12-19 23:28 GMT+01:00 Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>: >> On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 3:30 AM, Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > -> Bitmap Heap Scan on "Zasilka" (cost=5097.39..5670.64 rows=1 >> > width=12) >> > (actual time=62.253..62.400 rows=3 loops=231) >> ... >> > When I disable bitmap scan, then the query is 6x time faster >> .... >> > -> Index Scan using "Zasilka_idx_Dopravce" on "Zasilka" >> > (cost=0.00..30489.04 rows=1 width=12) (actual time=15.651..17.187 rows=3 >> > loops=231) >> > Index Cond: ("Dopravce" = "Dopravce_Ridic_1"."ID") >> > Filter: (("StavDatum" > (now() - '10 days'::interval)) AND >> > (("Stav" = >> > 34) OR ("Stav" = 29) OR ("Stav" = 180) OR ("Stav" = 213) OR ("Stav" = >> > 46) OR >> > (("Produkt" = 33) AND ("Stav" = 179)) OR ((("ZpetnaZasilka" = >> > '-1'::integer) >> > OR ("PrimaZasilka" = '-1'::integer)) AND ("Stav" = 40)))) >> > Rows Removed by Filter: 7596 >> >> I'm not sure, but my guess would be that the query planner isn't >> getting a very accurate selectivity estimate for that giant filter >> condition, and that's why the cost estimate is off. > > maybe operator cost is too high? Hmm, seems like you'd be paying the operator cost either way. No? -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
2016-12-20 13:55 GMT+01:00 Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>:
Hmm, seems like you'd be paying the operator cost either way. No?On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 2:13 AM, Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2016-12-19 23:28 GMT+01:00 Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>:
>> On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 3:30 AM, Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > -> Bitmap Heap Scan on "Zasilka" (cost=5097.39..5670.64 rows=1
>> > width=12)
>> > (actual time=62.253..62.400 rows=3 loops=231)
>> ...
>> > When I disable bitmap scan, then the query is 6x time faster
>> ....
>> > -> Index Scan using "Zasilka_idx_Dopravce" on "Zasilka"
>> > (cost=0.00..30489.04 rows=1 width=12) (actual time=15.651..17.187 rows=3
>> > loops=231)
>> > Index Cond: ("Dopravce" = "Dopravce_Ridic_1"."ID")
>> > Filter: (("StavDatum" > (now() - '10 days'::interval)) AND
>> > (("Stav" =
>> > 34) OR ("Stav" = 29) OR ("Stav" = 180) OR ("Stav" = 213) OR ("Stav" =
>> > 46) OR
>> > (("Produkt" = 33) AND ("Stav" = 179)) OR ((("ZpetnaZasilka" =
>> > '-1'::integer)
>> > OR ("PrimaZasilka" = '-1'::integer)) AND ("Stav" = 40))))
>> > Rows Removed by Filter: 7596
>>
>> I'm not sure, but my guess would be that the query planner isn't
>> getting a very accurate selectivity estimate for that giant filter
>> condition, and that's why the cost estimate is off.
>
> maybe operator cost is too high?
It looks so this cost is much more significant in index scan feature
Pavel
Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> writes: > I am trying to fix slow query on PostgreSQL 9.5.4. > The data are almost in RAM If it's all in RAM, you'd likely be well-served to lower random_page_cost. It looks to me like the planner is estimating pretty accurately how many heap fetches will be eliminated by using the extra index; where it's off seems to be in the cost of those heap fetches relative to the index work. regards, tom lane
2016-12-21 0:01 GMT+01:00 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>:
Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> writes:
> I am trying to fix slow query on PostgreSQL 9.5.4.
> The data are almost in RAM
If it's all in RAM, you'd likely be well-served to lower random_page_cost.
It looks to me like the planner is estimating pretty accurately how many
heap fetches will be eliminated by using the extra index; where it's off
seems to be in the cost of those heap fetches relative to the index work.
When I decrease random page cost, then the cost of bitmapscan was decreased too
https://explain.depesz.com/s/7CAJ .. random page cost 2
https://explain.depesz.com/s/iEBW .. random page cost 2, bitmapscan off
https://explain.depesz.com/s/W4zw .. random page cost 2
https://explain.depesz.com/s/Gar .. random page cost 1, bitmapscan off
https://explain.depesz.com/s/7CAJ .. random page cost 2
https://explain.depesz.com/s/iEBW .. random page cost 2, bitmapscan off
https://explain.depesz.com/s/W4zw .. random page cost 2
https://explain.depesz.com/s/Gar .. random page cost 1, bitmapscan off
I played with other costs, but without any success, the cost of bitmapscan is significantly cheaper then index scan.
Regards
Pavel
regards, tom lane