Re: Largely inconsistent query execution speed, involving psql_tmp
От | Andy Colson |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Largely inconsistent query execution speed, involving psql_tmp |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 53BC09F9.1070103@squeakycode.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Largely inconsistent query execution speed, involving psql_tmp (Spiros Ioannou <sivann@inaccess.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Largely inconsistent query execution speed, involving psql_tmp
|
Список | pgsql-general |
On 7/8/2014 4:47 AM, Spiros Ioannou wrote: > While executing the following query through psql : > > SELECT me.* FROM measurement_events me JOIN msrcs_timestamps mt ON > me.measurement_source_id=mt.measurement_source_id WHERE > measurement_time > last_update_time > > there are two behaviors observed by postgresql (8.4): > 1) Either the query performs lots of reads on the database and completes > in about 4 hours (that is the normal-expected behavior) > 2) Either the query starts filling-up pgsql_tmp and this causes large > write I/O on the server, and the query never actually completes on a > reasonable time (we stop it after 10h). > > For some strange reason, behaviour 2 is always observed when running > psql through a bash script, while behavior 1 is only observed while > running psql interactively from command line (but not always). > > explain: > # explain SELECT me.* FROM measurement_events me JOIN msrcs_timestamps > mt ON me.measurement_source_id=mt.measurement_source_id WHERE > measurement_time > last_update_time; > QUERY PLAN > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Hash Join (cost=10111.78..422893652.69 rows=2958929695 width=103) > Hash Cond: (me.measurement_source_id = mt.measurement_source_id) > Join Filter: (me.measurement_time > mt.last_update_time) > -> Seq Scan on measurement_events me (cost=0.00..234251772.85 > rows=8876789085 width=103) > -> Hash (cost=5733.57..5733.57 rows=350257 width=24) > -> Seq Scan on msrcs_timestamps mt (cost=0.00..5733.57 > rows=350257 width=24) > (6 rows) > > > We have tried so far fiddling with work_mem up to 512M - no difference. > Any suggestions? > > > > Thanks for any help, > -Spiros Ioannou > inaccess > Is there any reason you don't have an index? One, or both, of these will help: create index measurement_events_pk on measurement_events(measurement_source_id); create index msrcs_timestamps_pk on msrcs_timestamps(measurement_source_id); measurement_events has 8 billion rows, so expect it to take a while, but its a one time cost and should _dramatically_ increase your query performance. -Andy
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: