I am new to PostgreSQL and would like to know how to set a column in a table to its sorted version. For example:
(table: t1, column: points)
5
7
3
9
8
4
(table: t1, column: points) // pls note it is sorted
3
4
5
7
8
9
My incorrect version:
UPDATE outputTable SET points_count = (SELECT points_count FROM outputTable ORDER BY points_count ASC)
Try with this :
UPDATE outputTable
SET points_count = s.points_count
FROM (SELECT points_count, ctid FROM outputTable ORDER BY points_count ASC) s
WHERE outputTable.ctid = s.ctid;
As you are planning to update same table with reference to same table, you will need row level equality criteria like ctid to update each row.
It seems like you want to sort the rows in a table.
Now this is normally a pointless exercise, since tables have no fixed order. In fact, every UPDATE will change the order of rows in a PostgreSQL table.
The only way you can get a certain order in the result rows of a query is by using the ORDER BY clause, which will sort the rows regardless of their physical order in the table (which is not dependable, as mentioned above).
There is one use case for physically reordering a table: an index range scan using an index on points_count will be much more efficient if the table is physically sorted like the index. The reason is that far fewer table blocks will be accessed.
Therefore, there is a way to rewrite the table in a certain order as long as you have an index on the column:
CREATE INDEX ON outputtable (points_count);
CLUSTER outputtable USING points_count;
But – as I said above – unless you plan a range scan on that index, the exercise is pointless.
Related
I have a table with the following columns:
ID (VARCHAR)
CUSTOMER_ID (VARCHAR)
STATUS (VARCHAR) (4 different status possible)
other not relevant columns
I try to find all the lines with customer_id = and status = two different status.
The query looks like:
SELECT *
FROM my_table
WHERE customer_id = '12345678' AND status IN ('STATUS1', 'STATUS2');
The table contains about 1 mio lines. I added two indexes on customer_id and status. The query still needs about 1 second to run.
The explain plan is:
1. Gather
2. Seq Scan on my_table
Filter: (((status)::text = ANY ('{SUBMITTED,CANCELLED}'::text[])) AND ((customer_id)::text = '12345678'::text))
I ran the 'analyze my_table' after creating the indexes. What could I do to improve the performance of this quite simple query?
You need a compound (multi-column) index to help satisfy your query.
Guessing, it seems like the most selective column (the one with the most distinct values) is customer_id. status probably has only a few distinct values. So customer_id should go first in the index. Try this.
ALTER TABLE my_table ADD INDEX customer_id_status (customer_id, status);
This creates a BTREE index. A useful mental model for such an index is an old-fashioned telephone book. It's sorted in order. You look up the first matching entry in the index, then scan it sequentially for the items you want.
You may also want to try running ANALYZE my_table; to update the statistics (about selectivity) used by the query planner to choose an appropriate index.
Pro tip Avoid SELECT * if you can. Instead name the columns you want. This can help performance a lot.
Pro tip Your question said some of your columns aren't relevant to query optimization. That's probably not true; index design is a weird art. SELECT * makes it less true.
Within my db I have table prediction_fsd with about 5 million entries. The site table contains approx 3 million entries. I need to execute queries that look like
SELECT prediction_fsd.id AS prediction_fsd_id,
prediction_fsd.site_id AS prediction_fsd_site_id,
prediction_fsd.html_hash AS prediction_fsd_html_hash,
prediction_fsd.prediction AS prediction_fsd_prediction,
prediction_fsd.algorithm AS prediction_fsd_algorithm,
prediction_fsd.model_version AS prediction_fsd_model_version,
prediction_fsd.timestamp AS prediction_fsd_timestamp,
site_1.id AS site_1_id,
site_1.url AS site_1_url,
site_1.status AS site_1_status
FROM prediction_fsd
LEFT OUTER JOIN site AS site_1
ON site_1.id = prediction_fsd.site_id
WHERE 95806 = prediction_fsd.site_id
AND prediction_fsd.algorithm = 'xgboost'
ORDER BY prediction_fsd.timestamp DESC
LIMIT 1
at the moment this query takes about ~4 seconds. I'd like to reduce that by introducing an index. Which tables and fields should I include in that index. I'm having troubles properly understanding the EXPLAIN ANALYZE output of Postgres
CREATE INDEX prediction_fsd_site_id_algorithm_timestamp
ON public.prediction_fsd USING btree
(site_id, algorithm, "timestamp" DESC)
TABLESPACE pg_default;
By introducing a combined index as suggested by Frank Heikens I was able to bring down the query execution time to 0.25s
These three SQL lines point to a possible BTREE index to help you.
WHERE 95806 = prediction_fsd.site_id
AND prediction_fsd.algorithm = 'xgboost'
ORDER BY prediction_fsd.timestamp DESC
You're filtering the rows of the table by equality on two columns, and ordering by the third column. So try this index.
CREATE INDEX site_alg_ts ON prediction_fsd
(site_id, algorithm, timestamp DESC);
This BTREE index lets PostgreSQL random-access it to the first eligible row, which happens also to be the row you want with your ORDER BY ... LIMIT 1 clause.
The query plan in your question says that PostgreSQL did an expensive Parallel Sequential Scan on all five megarows of that table. This index will almost certainly change that to a cheap index lookup.
On the other table, it appears that you already look up rows in it via the primary key id. So you don't need any other index for that one.
I am currently trying to join two tables, where both of the tables have very many different in the columns I am joining.
Here's the tsql
from AVG(Position) as Position from MonitoringGsc_Keywords as sk
Join GSC_RankingData on sk.Id = GSC_RankingData.KeywordId
groupy by sk.Id
The execution plan shows me, that it takes very much time to perform the join. I think it is because a huge group from the first table has to be compared with a huge group of values in the second table.
MonitoringGsc_Keywords.Id has about 60.000 different values
GSC_RankingData hat about 100.000.000 Values
MonitoringGsc_Keywords.Id is Primary-Key of MonitoringGsc_Keywords GSC_RankingData.KeywordId is indexed.
So, what can i do to increase performance?
Is Position column from GSC_RankingData table? If yes then JOIN is redundant and query should looks like this:
SELECT AVG(rd.Position) as Position
FROM GSC_RankingData rd
GROUP BY rd.KeywordId;
If Position column is in GSC_RankingData table then index on GSC_RankingData should include this column and looks like this:
CREATE INDEX IX_GSC_RankingData_KeywordId_Position ON GSC_RankingData(KeywordId) INCLUDE(Position);
You should check indexes fragmentation for this tables, to do this you could use this query:
SELECT * FROM sys.dm_db_index_physical_stats(db_id(), object_id('MonitoringGsc_Keywords'), null, null, 'DETAILED')
if avg_fragmentation_in_percent > 5% and < 30% then
ALTER INDEX [index name] on [table name] REORGANIZE;
if avg_fragmentation_in_percent >= 30% then
ALTER INDEX [index name] on [table name] REBUILD;
It could be problem with statistics, you could check it with query:
SELECT
sp.stats_id, name, filter_definition, last_updated, rows, rows_sampled,
steps, unfiltered_rows, modification_counter
FROM sys.stats AS stat
CROSS APPLY sys.dm_db_stats_properties(stat.object_id, stat.stats_id) AS sp
WHERE stat.object_id = object_id('GSC_RankingData');
check last update date, rows count, if it not be current then update statistics. Also it could be possible that statistics not exist, then you must create it.
I have table
create table big_table (
id serial primary key,
-- other columns here
vote int
);
This table is very big, approximately 70 million rows, I need to query:
SELECT * FROM big_table
ORDER BY vote [ASC|DESC], id [ASC|DESC]
OFFSET x LIMIT n -- I need this for pagination
As you may know, when x is a large number, queries like this are very slow.
For performance optimization I added indexes:
create index vote_order_asc on big_table (vote asc, id asc);
and
create index vote_order_desc on big_table (vote desc, id desc);
EXPLAIN shows that the above SELECT query uses these indexes, but it's very slow anyway with a large offset.
What can I do to optimize queries with OFFSET in big tables? Maybe PostgreSQL 9.5 or even newer versions have some features? I've searched but didn't find anything.
A large OFFSET is always going to be slow. Postgres has to order all rows and count the visible ones up to your offset. To skip all previous rows directly you could add an indexed row_number to the table (or create a MATERIALIZED VIEW including said row_number) and work with WHERE row_number > x instead of OFFSET x.
However, this approach is only sensible for read-only (or mostly) data. Implementing the same for table data that can change concurrently is more challenging. You need to start by defining desired behavior exactly.
I suggest a different approach for pagination:
SELECT *
FROM big_table
WHERE (vote, id) > (vote_x, id_x) -- ROW values
ORDER BY vote, id -- needs to be deterministic
LIMIT n;
Where vote_x and id_x are from the last row of the previous page (for both DESC and ASC). Or from the first if navigating backwards.
Comparing row values is supported by the index you already have - a feature that complies with the ISO SQL standard, but not every RDBMS supports it.
CREATE INDEX vote_order_asc ON big_table (vote, id);
Or for descending order:
SELECT *
FROM big_table
WHERE (vote, id) < (vote_x, id_x) -- ROW values
ORDER BY vote DESC, id DESC
LIMIT n;
Can use the same index.
I suggest you declare your columns NOT NULL or acquaint yourself with the NULLS FIRST|LAST construct:
PostgreSQL sort by datetime asc, null first?
Note two things in particular:
The ROW values in the WHERE clause cannot be replaced with separated member fields. WHERE (vote, id) > (vote_x, id_x) cannot be replaced with:
WHERE vote >= vote_x
AND id > id_x
That would rule out all rows with id <= id_x, while we only want to do that for the same vote and not for the next. The correct translation would be:
WHERE (vote = vote_x AND id > id_x) OR vote > vote_x
... which doesn't play along with indexes as nicely, and gets increasingly complicated for more columns.
Would be simple for a single column, obviously. That's the special case I mentioned at the outset.
The technique does not work for mixed directions in ORDER BY like:
ORDER BY vote ASC, id DESC
At least I can't think of a generic way to implement this as efficiently. If at least one of both columns is a numeric type, you could use a functional index with an inverted value on (vote, (id * -1)) - and use the same expression in ORDER BY:
ORDER BY vote ASC, (id * -1) ASC
Related:
SQL syntax term for 'WHERE (col1, col2) < (val1, val2)'
Improve performance for order by with columns from many tables
Note in particular the presentation by Markus Winand I linked to:
"Pagination done the PostgreSQL way"
Have you tried partioning the table ?
Ease of management, improved scalability and availability, and a
reduction in blocking are common reasons to partition tables.
Improving query performance is not a reason to employ partitioning,
though it can be a beneficial side-effect in some cases. In terms of
performance, it is important to ensure that your implementation plan
includes a review of query performance. Confirm that your indexes
continue to appropriately support your queries after the table is
partitioned, and verify that queries using the clustered and
nonclustered indexes benefit from partition elimination where
applicable.
http://sqlperformance.com/2013/09/sql-indexes/partitioning-benefits
Is there any way to get rowid of a record in postgres??
In oracle i can use like
SELECT MAX(BILLS.ROWID) FROM BILLS
Yes, there is ctid column which is equivalent for rowid. But is useless for you. Rowid and ctid are physical row/tuple identifiers => can change after rebuild/vacuum.
See: Chapter 5. Data Definition > 5.4. System Columns
The PostgreSQL row_number() window function can be used for most purposes where you would use rowid. Whereas in Oracle the rowid is an intrinsic numbering of the result data rows, in Postgres row_number() computes a numbering within a logical ordering of the returned data. Normally if you want to number the rows, it means you expect them in a particular order, so you would specify which column(s) to order the rows when numbering them:
select client_name, row_number() over (order by date) from bills;
If you just want the rows numbered arbitrarily you can leave the over clause empty:
select client_name, row_number() over () from bills;
If you want to calculate an aggregate over the row number you'll have to use a subquery:
select max(rownum) from (
select row_number() over () as rownum from bills
) r;
If all you need is the last item from a table, and you have a column to sort sequentially, there's a simpler approach than using row_number(). Just reverse the sort order and select the first item:
select * from bills
order by date desc limit 1;
Use a Sequence. You can choose 4 or 8 byte values.
http://www.neilconway.org/docs/sequences/
Add any unique column to your table(name maybe rowid).
And prevent changing it by creating BEFORE UPDATE trigger, which will raise exception if someone will try to update.
You may populate this column with sequence as #JohnMudd mentioned.