(Postgres v13)
I've got a query which takes 2 - 5 seconds to plan. The query joins my languages table and translations table to get translation results for multiple languages. When I add even more languages/translations to load the execution time is exponentially growing.
select
key0_.id as col_0_0_,
key0_.name as col_1_0_,
(select
count(screenshot60_.id)
from
screenshot screenshot60_
inner join
key key61_
on screenshot60_.key_id=key61_.id
where
key0_.id=key61_.id) as col_2_0_,
languages2_.tag as col_3_0_,
translatio31_.id as col_4_0_,
translatio31_.text as col_5_0_,
translatio31_.state as col_6_0_,
translatio31_.auto as col_7_0_,
translatio31_.mt_provider as col_8_0_,
languages3_.tag as col_11_0_,
translatio32_.id as col_12_0_,
translatio32_.text as col_13_0_,
translatio32_.state as col_14_0_,
translatio32_.auto as col_15_0_,
translatio32_.mt_provider as col_16_0_,
... the same over and over many times ...
languages30_.tag as col_227_0_,
translatio59_.id as col_228_0_,
translatio59_.text as col_229_0_,
translatio59_.state as col_230_0_,
translatio59_.auto as col_231_0_,
translatio59_.mt_provider as col_232_0_,
0 as col_233_0_,
0 as col_234_0_
from
key key0_
inner join
project project1_
on key0_.project_id=project1_.id
inner join
language languages2_
on project1_.id=languages2_.project_id
and (
languages2_.tag='en-US'
)
inner join
language languages3_
on project1_.id=languages3_.project_id
and (
languages3_.tag='es-PE'
)
... many times the same ...
inner join
language languages30_
on project1_.id=languages30_.project_id
and (
languages30_.tag='es-MX'
)
left outer join
translation translatio31_
on key0_.id=translatio31_.key_id
and (
translatio31_.language_id=languages2_.id
)
... many times the same ...
left outer join
translation translatio59_
on key0_.id=translatio59_.key_id
and (
translatio59_.language_id=languages30_.id
)
where
(
key0_.name in (
'base_administrative_notes.desc'
)
)
and
key0_.project_id=836
group by
key0_.id ,
languages2_.tag ,
translatio31_.id ,
languages3_.tag ,
translatio32_.id ,
... many times the same ...
languages30_.tag ,
translatio59_.id
order by
key0_.name asc nulls first,
key0_.id asc nulls first limit 1
The visualised EXPLAIN ANALYSE result: https://explain.dalibo.com/plan/uWS (the full query can be found there as well as raw output from explain (ANALYZE, COSTS, VERBOSE, BUFFERS, FORMAT JSON)).
I found in other threads that this can be caused by using too many indexes on the tables, but I only have a unique index on my translations table on key_id and language_id columns.
EDIT:
I've found out that setting join_collapse_limit to some value between 1 to 5 reduces the planning to under 200ms. Don't know if this is the best solution, but I am going to use it as a workaround for now.
As Laurenz Albe explained, the planner is probably trying to reorder the joins to optimize the query.
With n tables, the number of possible joins order is n! (factorial n).
My suggestion is to :
make sure the order is the best in your query
set that particular parameter to 1 before the query
play the query
reset the parameter
You can check Alicja's slide deck (from slide 22) where she illustrates that particular problem with examples here: https://www.postgresql.eu/events/pgconfeu2017/sessions/session/1617/slides/9/FromMinutesToMilliseconds.pdf
I have store procedure which return data fine and it was developed by some one else who now not in touch.
Output now looks like
Here i am attaching a part of the query which return data.
SET #sql = '
Select XX.*,'''' scale,Isnull(AllowComma,''FALSE'') AllowComma,Isnull(AllowedDecimalPlace,''0'') AllowedDecimalPlace,
Isnull(AllowPercentageSign,''FALSE'') AllowPercentageSign,Isnull(CurrencySign,'''') CurrencySign,Isnull(BM_Denominator,'''') BM_Denominator
From
(
---- Broker Detail
Select AA.Section,AA.LineItem,Csm.DisplayInCSM ,AA.BrokerCode Broker,AA.BrokerName,'''' BM_Element,'''' BM_Code,AA.Ord,AA.[Revise Date],AA.LineItemId,
Csm.ID,[FontName],[FontStyle],[FontSize],[UnderLine],[BGColor],[FGColor],[Indent],[Box],[HeadingSubHeading],
'+#PeriodCols+','+#PeriodColsComment +',LineItem_Comment,BrokerName_Comment,Date_Comment
From tblCSM_ModelDetails Csm LEFT OUTER JOIN (
Select b.*,L.ID LineItemId
From #TmpAll_Broker_LI b
INNER JOIN TblLineItemTemplate L ON TickerID='''+#TickerID+''' AND b.LineItem= L.LineItem
) AA ON Csm.LineItemId=AA.LineItemId
WHERE Csm.CSM_ID='+TRIM(CONVERT(CHAR(10),#CSM_Id))+' AND Csm.BMID=0 AND Type !=''SHEET''
UNION
----- Consensus
Select Section, b.LineItem,DisplayInCSM, '''' Broker,'''' BrokerName,'''' BM_Element,'''' BM_Code, Ord,'''' [Revise Date],L.ID LineItemID,
Csm.ID,[FontName],[FontStyle],[FontSize],[UnderLine],[BGColor],[FGColor],[Indent],[Box],[HeadingSubHeading],
'+#PeriodCols+','+#PeriodColsComment +',LineItem_Comment,BrokerName_Comment,Date_Comment
From #TmpZacksCons b
INNER JOIN TblLineItemTemplate L ON TickerID='''+#TickerID+''' AND b.LineItem= L.LineItem
INNER JOIN tblCSM_ModelDetails Csm ON Csm.LineItemID=L.ID
WHERE Csm.CSM_ID='+TRIM(CONVERT(CHAR(10),#CSM_Id))+' AND Csm.BMID=0
---- Blue Metrics
UNION
Select Section, b.LineItem,DisplayInCSM,'''' Broker,'''' BrokerName,BM_Element,Code BM_Code, Ord,'''' [Revise Date],L.ID LineItemID,
Csm.ID,[FontName],[FontStyle],[FontSize],[UnderLine],[BGColor],[FGColor],[Indent],[Box],[HeadingSubHeading],
'+#PeriodCols+','+#PeriodColsComment +',LineItem_Comment,BrokerName_Comment,Date_Comment
From #TmpBM b
INNER JOIN TblLineItemTemplate L ON TickerID='''+#TickerID+''' AND b.LineItem= L.LineItem
INNER JOIN tblCSM_ModelDetails Csm ON Csm.BMID=b.code AND Csm.LineItemID=L.ID
WHERE Csm.CSM_ID='+TRIM(CONVERT(CHAR(10),#CSM_Id))+'
AND Ord IS NOT NULL
) XX
Left Outer Join tblLiConfig ZZ
On XX.Section=ZZ.Section And XX.LineItem=ZZ.LI And ZZ.Ticker='''+#Ticker+'''
Order by ID,Ord,BM_Code,LineItem,BrokerName'
Now broker Name is not coming as alphabetical order and it is the issue.
see this line at the bottom Order by ID,Ord,BM_Code,LineItem,BrokerName
When i try to change this order by like Order by ID,Ord,BM_Code,LineItem,BrokerName IN (SELECT BrokerName FROM #Brokers ORDER BY BrokerName ASC)' then getting error like clause is invalid in views, inline functions, derived tables, subqueries, and common table expressions, unless TOP, OFFSET or FOR XML is also specified.
in my order by there are many columns and data is getting order by that way but i need to show broker name in alphabetical order but i am not being able. so please some one guide me how can i customize this sql.
Here i have not attached my full store procedure code because it is very large. looking for suggestion & help. Thanks
Short version
The ORDER BY is doing what is expected - ordering first by ID, then Ord, then BM_Code, then LineItem, then BrokerName.
Within ID 76187, the next field to order by is Ord - which it sorts from 30911, to 31097.
If it previously ordered by BrokerName, it was only by chance - or that Ord was ordered the same way as BrokerName.
My initial suggestion is to re-order your sort e.g., ORDER BY ID, BM_Code, LineItem, BrokerName, Ord
Longer explanation of issue
In SQL, underlying data is treated as a set and ordering doesn't matter.
For example, if you have a variable #x and you were testing IF #x IN (1,2,3,4,5) will produce the same result as IF #x in (5,4,3,2,1).
In your example, you're putting an ORDER BY into the sub-query you're checking with the IN e.g., ORDER BY ... BrokerName IN (SELECT BrokerName FROM #Brokers ORDER BY BrokerName ASC). The order of that sub-query isn't allowed, and wouldn't do anything anyway.
The only sort that matters (other than for a few things like TOP) is the final sort - when displaying the data.
That being said, even if you removed the ORDER BY in the sub-query, it wouldn't help you with your issue
The SQL is not likely to work anyway - ORDER BY needs a value - you may have needed to make it CASE WHEN BrokerName IN (...) THEN 0 ELSE 1 END
Which also won't help, as the issue is that Ord is sorted before BrokerName anyway.
UPDATE following comment
Fundamentally, the statement that provides the actual report is
SET #sql = '
Select XX.*,'''' scale,Isnull(AllowComma,''FALSE'') AllowComma,Isnull(AllowedDecimalPlace,''0'') AllowedDecimalPlace,
Isnull(AllowPercentageSign,''FALSE'') AllowPercentageSign,Isnull(CurrencySign,'''') CurrencySign,Isnull(BM_Denominator,'''') BM_Denominator
From (<a whole lot of calculations/cpode>) XX
Left Outer Join tblLiConfig ZZ
On XX.Section=ZZ.Section And XX.LineItem=ZZ.LI And ZZ.Ticker='''+#Ticker+'''
Order by ID,Ord,BM_Code,LineItem,BrokerName'
The last line on there provides the ordering of the data coming from this procedure.
To get a different order, you need to change the order of the fields shown - moving BrokerName more towards the start of the list, and Ord towards the end.
e.g.,
SET #sql = '
Select XX.*,'''' scale,Isnull(AllowComma,''FALSE'') AllowComma,Isnull(AllowedDecimalPlace,''0'') AllowedDecimalPlace,
Isnull(AllowPercentageSign,''FALSE'') AllowPercentageSign,Isnull(CurrencySign,'''') CurrencySign,Isnull(BM_Denominator,'''') BM_Denominator
From (<a whole lot of calculations/cpode>) XX
Left Outer Join tblLiConfig ZZ
On XX.Section=ZZ.Section And XX.LineItem=ZZ.LI And ZZ.Ticker='''+#Ticker+'''
Order by ID,BrokerName,BM_Code,LineItem,Ord'
The above probably sorts by BrokerName too early - but it's up to you to determine what you need.
I have this complex data relationship.
POSTGRESQL FIDDLE: https://www.db-fiddle.com/f/vm2z8qLuddzcHEgyaMnCbc/3
"Item Group" has many "items" through "item_ads" table.
So an Item Group has many part_number.
reports table contains the number of clicks for each day for each adgroupid.
Each adgroupid has_many part_numbers. (table: product_ads)
Now, I want to SUM all reports.clicks for each item_groups.id using the part_number to linked the tables.
After this, I have to consider only reports.adgroupid which are included in the part_numbers of item_group. So if "Item group" has three part_number (A, B, C) can be considered all adgroupid that contains A,B, or C but nothing more. If adgroupid contains part_number D it cannot be considered for clicks sum.
Expected results
I have to have a table with lots of item_group_ids.
I am looking for the PostgreSQL query to achieve this table.
First, let's build the query up in parts. It sounds like you already know how to get from item_group and adgroup to part_number, just not about how to join them. I've added a query that removes duplicates for part 1 of your question, but putting them into a CTE:
WITH unique_part_numbers AS (
SELECT DISTINCT item_groups.id AS item_group_id,
part_number
FROM item_groups
JOIN item_ads ON item_group_id = item_groups.id
JOIN items ON items.id = item_ads.item_id
)
SELECT unique_part_numbers.item_group_id, SUM(clicks)
FROM unique_part_numbers
JOIN product_ads ON product_ads.part_number = unique_part_numbers.part_number
JOIN reports ON product_ads.adgroupid = reports.adgroupid
GROUP BY item_group_id
About the second part - it's not possible to do it as you want, because you can have multiple adgroups per item_group - so I added adgroupid as an extra column. I create an array of part_numbers for the adgroup and check, using the #> operator, that all parts that are from the adgroupid are also from the unique_part_numbers.item_group_id.
WITH unique_part_numbers AS (
SELECT DISTINCT item_groups.id AS item_group_id,
part_number
FROM item_groups
JOIN item_ads ON item_group_id = item_groups.id
JOIN items ON items.id = item_ads.item_id
)
SELECT unique_part_numbers.item_group_id,
product_ads.adgroupid,
array_agg(unique_part_numbers.part_number),
SUM(clicks)
FROM unique_part_numbers
JOIN product_ads ON product_ads.part_number = unique_part_numbers.part_number
JOIN reports ON product_ads.adgroupid = reports.adgroupid
GROUP BY item_group_id, product_ads.adgroupid
HAVING array_agg(product_ads.part_number) #> (
SELECT ARRAY_AGG(other_product_ads.part_number)
FROM product_ads AS other_product_ads
WHERE other_product_ads.adgroupid = product_ads.adgroupid
)
All,
I am iOS developer. Currently we have stored 2.5 lacks data in database. And we have implemented search functionality on that. Below is the query that we are using.
select CustomerMaster.CustomerName ,CustomerMaster.CustomerNumber,
CallActivityList.CallActivityID,CallActivityList.CustomerID,CallActivityList.UserID,
CallActivityList.ActivityType,CallActivityList.Objective,CallActivityList.Result,
CallActivityList.Comments,CallActivityList.CreatedDate,CallActivityList.UpdateDate,
CallActivityList.CallDate,CallActivityList.OrderID,CallActivityList.SalesPerson,
CallActivityList.GratisProduct,CallActivityList.CallActivityDeviceID,
CallActivityList.IsExported,CallActivityList.isDeleted,CallActivityList.TerritoryID,
CallActivityList.TerritoryName,CallActivityList.Hours,UserMaster.UserName,
(FirstName ||' '||LastName) as UserNameFull,UserMaster.TerritoryID as UserTerritory
from
CallActivityList
inner join CustomerMaster
ON CustomerMaster.DeviceCustomerID = CallActivityList.CustomerID
inner Join UserMaster
On UserMaster.UserID = CallActivityList.UserID
where
(CustomerMaster.CustomerName like '%T%' or
CustomerMaster.CustomerNumber like '%T%' or
CallActivityList.ActivityType like '%T%' or
CallActivityList.TerritoryName like '%T%' or
CallActivityList.SalesPerson like '%T%' )
and CallActivityList.IsExported!='2' and CallActivityList.isDeleted != '1'
order by
CustomerMaster.CustomerName
limit 50 offset 0
Without using 'order by' The query is returning result in 0.5 second. But when i am attaching 'order by', Time is increasing to 2 seconds.
I have tried indexing but it is not making any noticeable change. Any one please help. If we are not going through Query then how can we do it fast.
Thanks in advance.
This is due to the the limit. Without ORDER BY only 50 records have to be processed and any 50 will be returned. With ORDER BY all the records have to be processed in order to determine which ones are the first 50 (in order).
The problem is that the ORDER BY is performed on a joined table. Otherise you could apply the limit on the main table (I assume it is the CallActivityList) first and then join.
SELECT ...
FROM
(SELECT ... FROM CallActivityList ORDER BY ... LIMIT 50 OFFSET 0) AS CAL
INNER JOIN CustomerMaster ON ...
INNER JOIN UserMaster ON ...
ORDER BY ...
This would reduce the costs for joining the tables. If this is not possible, try at least to join CallActivityList with CustomerMaster. Apply the limit to those and finally join with UserMaster.
SELECT ...
FROM
(SELECT ...
FROM
CallActivityList
INNER JOIN CustomerMaster ON ...
ORDER BY CustomerMaster.CustomerName
LIMIT 50 OFFSET 0) AS ActCust
INNER JOIN UserMaster ON ...
ORDER BY ...
Also, in order to make the ordering unambiguous, I would include more columns into the order by, like call date and call id. Otherwise this could result in a inconsistent paging.
I'm trying create a SELECT with GROUP BY in Firebird but I can't have any success. How could I do this ?
Exception
Can't format message 13:896 -- message file C:\firebird.msg not found.
Dynamic SQL Error.
SQL error code = -104.
Invalid expression in the select list (not contained in either an aggregate function or the GROUP BY clause).
(49,765 sec)
trying
SELECT FA_DATA, FA_CODALUNO, FA_MATERIA, FA_TURMA, FA_QTDFALTA,
ALU_CODIGO, ALU_NOME,
M_CODIGO, M_DESCRICAO,
FT_CODIGO, FT_ANOLETIVO, FT_TURMA
FROM FALTAS Falta
INNER JOIN ALUNOS Aluno ON (Falta.FA_CODALUNO = Aluno.ALU_CODIGO)
INNER JOIN MATERIAS Materia ON (Falta.FA_MATERIA = Materia.M_CODIGO)
INNER JOIN FORMACAOTURMAS Turma ON (Falta.FA_TURMA = Turma.FT_CODIGO)
WHERE (Falta.FA_CODALUNO = 238) AND (Turma.FT_ANOLETIVO = 2015)
GROUP BY Materia.M_CODIGO
Simple use of group by in firebird,group by all columns
select * from T1 t
where t.id in
(SELECT t.id FROM T1 t
INNER JOIN T2 j ON j.id = t.jid
WHERE t.id = 1
GROUP BY t.id)
Using GROUP BY doesn't make sense in your example code. It is only useful when using aggregate functions (+ some other minor uses). In any case, Firebird requires you to specify all columns from the SELECT column list except those with aggregate functions in the GROUP BY clause.
Note that this is more restrictive than the SQL standard, which allows you to leave out functionally dependent columns (ie if you specify a primary key or unique key, you don't need to specify the other columns of that table).
You don't specify why you want to group (because it doesn't make much sense to do it with this query). Maybe instead you want to ORDER BY, or you want the first row for each M_CODIGO.