If the LIMIT is applied to the rows returned from a query, does this mean that more rows could be locked that are not returned?
Like this:
select * from myTable where status = 'READY' limit 10 FOR UPDATE
If there are 1000 rows in a status of READY, does it row lock them all but only return 10?
I am seeing quite a costly -> LockRows on my explain plan and trying to understand why.
Thanks
From the documentation, it seems pretty clear that only the actual records returned by your select query would be locked:
FOR UPDATE causes the rows retrieved by the SELECT statement to be locked as though for update. This prevents them from being locked, modified or deleted by other transactions until the current transaction ends.
That being said, one possible explanation for why the LockRows operation seems so costly is that, in order to isolate the 10 records you want for locking, it first has to do a sort to implement LIMIT. This is an operation which involves the entire table, so for a large table, and without an index to help, this could take some time.
Let's say this were your actual query:
select * from myTable where status = 'READY' order by some_col limit 10 FOR UPDATE
This query would benefit from the following index:
create index idx on myTable (status, some_col);
The first column in the index status would let Postgres discard records not matching the WHERE filter. After this, the index also covers some_col, which means Postgres could easily find the limit 10 records you want already in the correct order.
This is a follow-up to the question at Slow Postgres 9.3 queries.
The new indexes definitely help. But what we're seeing is sometimes queries are much slower in practice than when we run EXPLAIN ANALYZE. An example is the following, run on the production database:
explain analyze SELECT * FROM messages WHERE groupid=957 ORDER BY id DESC LIMIT 20 OFFSET 31980;
QUERY PLAN
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limit (cost=127361.90..127441.55 rows=20 width=747) (actual time=152.036..152.143 rows=20 loops=1)
-> Index Scan Backward using idx_groupid_id on messages (cost=0.43..158780.12 rows=39869 width=747) (actual time=0.080..150.484 rows=32000 loops=1)
Index Cond: (groupid = 957)
Total runtime: 152.186 ms
(4 rows)
With slow query logging turned on, we see instances of this query taking over 2 seconds. We also have log_lock_waits=true, and no slow locks are reported around the same time. What could explain the vast difference in execution times?
LIMIT x OFFSET y generally performs not much faster than LIMIT x + y. A large OFFSET is always comparatively expensive. The suggested index in the linked question helps, but while you cannot get index-only scans out of it, Postgres still has to check visibility in the heap (the main relation) for at least x + y rows to determine the correct result.
SELECT *
FROM messages
WHERE groupid = 957
ORDER BY id DESC
LIMIT 20
OFFSET 31980;
CLUSTER on your index (groupid,id) would help to increase locality of data in the heap and reduce the number of data pages to be read per query. Definitely a win. But if all groupid are equally likely to be queried, that's not going to remove the bottleneck of too little RAM for cache. If you have concurrent access, consider pg_repack instead of CLUSTER:
Optimize Postgres timestamp query range
Do you actually need all columns returned? (SELECT *) A covering index enabling index-only scans might help if you only need a few small columns returned. (autovacuum must be strong enough to cope with writes to the table, though. Read-only table would be ideal.)
Also, according to your linked question, your table is 32 GB on disk. (Typically a bit more in RAM). The index on (groupid,id) adds another 308 MB at least (without any bloat):
SELECT pg_size_pretty(7337880.0 * 44); -- row count * tuple size
Making sense of Postgres row sizes
You have 8 GB RAM, of which you expect around 4.5 GB to be used for cache (effective_cache_size = 4608MB). That's enough to cache the index for repeated use, but not nearly enough to also cache the whole table.
If your query happens to find data pages in cache, it's fast. Else, not so much. Big difference, even with SSD storage (much more with HDD).
Not directly related to this query, but 8 MB of work_mem (work_mem = 7864kB) seems way to small for your setup. Depending on various other factors I would set this to at least 64MB (unless you have many concurrent queries with sort / hash operations). Like #Craig commented, EXPLAIN (BUFFERS, ANALYZE) might tell us more.
The best query plan also depends on value frequencies. If only few rows pass the filter, the result might be empty for certain groupid and the query is comparatively fast. If a large portion of the table has to be fetched, a plain sequential scan wins. You need valid table statistics (autovacuum again). And possibly a larger statistics target for groupid:
Keep PostgreSQL from sometimes choosing a bad query plan
Since OFFSET is slow, an alternative is to simulate OFFSET using another column and some index preparation. We require a UNIQUE column (like a PRIMARY KEY) on the table. If there is none, one can be added with:
CREATE SEQUENCE messages_pkey_seq ;
ALTER TABLE messages
ADD COLUMN message_id integer DEFAULT nextval('messages_pkey_seq');
Next we create the position column for the OFFSET simulation:
ALTER TABLE messages ADD COLUMN position INTEGER;
UPDATE messages SET position = q.position FROM (SELECT message_id,
row_number() OVER (PARTITION BY group_id ORDER BY id DESC) AS position
FROM messages ) AS q WHERE q.message_id=messages.message_id ;
CREATE INDEX ON messages ( group_id, position ) ;
Now we are ready for the new version of the query in the OP:
SELECT * FROM messages WHERE group_id = 957 AND
position BETWEEN 31980 AND (31980+20-1) ;
I have read from internet resources that a query will be slow when the offset increases. But in my case I think its too much slow. I am using postgres 9.3
Here is the query (id is primary key):
select * from test_table offset 3900000 limit 100;
It returns me data in around 10 seconds. And I think its too much slow. I have around 4 million records in table. Overall size of the database is 23GB.
Machine configuration:
RAM: 12 GB
CPU: 2.30 GHz
Core: 10
Few values from postgresql.conf file which I have changed are as below. Others are default.
shared_buffers = 2048MB
temp_buffers = 512MB
work_mem = 1024MB
maintenance_work_mem = 256MB
dynamic_shared_memory_type = posix
default_statistics_target = 10000
autovacuum = on
enable_seqscan = off ## its not making any effect as I can see from Analyze doing seq-scan
Apart from these I have also tried by changing the values of random_page_cost = 2.0 and cpu_index_tuple_cost = 0.0005 and result is same.
Explain (analyze, buffers) result over the query is as below:
"Limit (cost=10000443876.02..10000443887.40 rows=100 width=1034) (actual time=12793.975..12794.292 rows=100 loops=1)"
" Buffers: shared hit=26820 read=378984"
" -> Seq Scan on test_table (cost=10000000000.00..10000467477.70 rows=4107370 width=1034) (actual time=0.008..9036.776 rows=3900100 loops=1)"
" Buffers: shared hit=26820 read=378984"
"Planning time: 0.136 ms"
"Execution time: 12794.461 ms"
How people around the world negotiates with this problem in postgres? Any alternate solution will be helpful for me as well.
UPDATE:: Adding order by id (tried with other indexed column as well) and here is the explain:
"Limit (cost=506165.06..506178.04 rows=100 width=1034) (actual time=15691.132..15691.494 rows=100 loops=1)"
" Buffers: shared hit=110813 read=415344"
" -> Index Scan using test_table_pkey on test_table (cost=0.43..533078.74 rows=4107370 width=1034) (actual time=38.264..11535.005 rows=3900100 loops=1)"
" Buffers: shared hit=110813 read=415344"
"Planning time: 0.219 ms"
"Execution time: 15691.660 ms"
It's slow because it needs to locate the top offset rows and scan the next 100. No amounts of optimization will change that when you're dealing with huge offsets.
This is because your query literally instruct the DB engine to visit lots of rows by using offset 3900000 -- that's 3.9M rows. Options to speed this up somewhat aren't many.
Super-fast RAM, SSDs, etc. will help. But you'll only gain by a constant factor in doing so, meaning it's merely kicking the can down the road until you reach a larger enough offset.
Ensuring the table fits in memory, with plenty more to spare will likewise help by a larger constant factor -- except the first time. But this may not be possible with a large enough table or index.
Ensuring you're doing index-only scans will work to an extent. (See velis' answer; it has a lot of merit.) The problem here is that, for all practical purposes, you can think of an index as a table storing a disk location and the indexed fields. (It's more optimized than that, but it's a reasonable first approximation.) With enough rows, you'll still be running into problems with a larger enough offset.
Trying to store and maintain the precise position of the rows is bound to be an expensive approach too.(This is suggested by e.g. benjist.) While technically feasible, it suffers from limitations similar to those that stem from using MPTT with a tree structure: you'll gain significantly on reads but will end up with excessive write times when a node is inserted, updated or removed in such a way that large chunks of the data needs to be updated alongside.
As is hopefully more clear, there isn't any real magic bullet when you're dealing with offsets this large. It's often better to look at alternative approaches.
If you're paginating based on the ID (or a date field, or any other indexable set of fields), a potential trick (used by blogspot, for instance) would be to make your query start at an arbitrary point in the index.
Put another way, instead of:
example.com?page_number=[huge]
Do something like:
example.com?page_following=[huge]
That way, you keep a trace of where you are in your index, and the query becomes very fast because it can head straight to the correct starting point without plowing through a gazillion rows:
select * from foo where ID > [huge] order by ID limit 100
Naturally, you lose the ability to jump to e.g. page 3000. But give this some honest thought: when was the last time you jumped to a huge page number on a site instead of going straight for its monthly archives or using its search box?
If you're paginating but want to keep the page offset by any means, yet another approach is to forbid the use of larger page number. It's not silly: it's what Google is doing with search results. When running a search query, Google gives you an estimate number of results (you can get a reasonable number using explain), and then will allow you to brows the top few thousand results -- nothing more. Among other things, they do so for performance reasons -- precisely the one you're running into.
I have upvoted Denis's answer, but will add a suggestion myself, perhaps it can be of some performance benefit for your specific use-case:
Assuming your actual table is not test_table, but some huge compound query, possibly with multiple joins. You could first determine the required starting id:
select id from test_table order by id offset 3900000 limit 1
This should be much faster than original query as it only requires to scan the index vs the entire table. Getting this id then opens up a fast index-search option for full fetch:
select * from test_table where id >= (what I got from previous query) order by id limit 100
You didn't say if your data is mainly read-only or updated often. If you can manage to create your table at one time, and only update it every now and then (say every few minutes) your problem will be easy to solve:
Add a new column "offset_id"
For your complete data set ordered by ID, create an offset_id simply by incrementing numbers: 1,2,3,4...
Instead of "offset ... limit 100" use "where offset_id >= 3900000 limit 100"
you can optimise in two steps
First get maximum id out of 3900000 records
select max(id) (select id from test_table order by id limit 3900000);
Then use this maximum id to get the next 100 records.
select * from test_table id > {max id from previous step) order by id limit 100 ;
It will be faster as both queries will do index scan by id.
This way you get the rows in semi-random order. You are not ordering the results in a query, so as a result, you get the data as it is stored in the files. The problem is that when you update the rows, the order of them can change.
To fix that you should add order by to the query. This way the query will return the rows in the same order. What's more then it will be able to use an index to speed the query up.
So two things: add an index, add order by to the query. Both to the same column. If you want to use the id column, then don't add index, just change the query to something like:
select * from test_table order by id offset 3900000 limit 100;
First, you have to define limit and offset with order by clause or you will get inconsistent result.
To speed up the query, you can have a computed index, but only for these condition :
Newly inserted data is strictly in id order
No delete nor update on column id
Here's how You can do it :
Create a row position function
create or replace function id_pos (id) returns bigint
as 'select count(id) from test_table where id <= $1;'
language sql immutable;
Create a computed index on id_pos function
create index table_by_pos on test_table using btree(id_pos(id));
Here's how You call it (offset 3900000 limit 100):
select * from test_table where id_pos(id) >= 3900000 and sales_pos(day) < 3900100;
This way, the query will not compute the 3900000 offset data, but only will compute the 100 data, making it much faster.
Please note the 2 conditions where this approach can take place, or the position will change.
I don't know all of the details of your data, but 4 million rows can be a little hefty. If there's a reasonable way to shard the table and essentially break it up into smaller tables it could be beneficial.
To explain this, let me use an example. let's say that I have a database where I have a table called survey_answer, and it's getting very large and very slow. Now let's say that these survey answers all come from a distinct group of clients (and I also have a client table keeping track of these clients). Then something I could do is I could make it so that I have a table called survey_answer that doesn't have any data in it, but is a parent table, and it has a bunch of child tables that actually contain the data the follow the naming format survey_answer_<clientid>, meaning that I'd have child tables survey_answer_1, survey_answer_2, etc., one for each client. Then when I needed to select data for that client, I'd use that table. If I needed to select data across all clients, I can select from the parent survey_answer table, but it will be slow. But for getting data for an individual client, which is what I mostly do, then it would be fast.
This is one example of how to break up data, and there are many others. Another example would be if my survey_answer table didn't break up easily by client, but instead I know that I'm typically only accessing data over a year period of time at once, then I could potentially make child tables based off of year, such as survey_answer_2014, survey_answer_2013, etc. Then if I know that I won't access more than a year at a time, I only really need to access maybe two of my child tables to get all the data I need.
In your case, all I've been given is perhaps the id. We can break it up by that as well (though perhaps not as ideal). Let's say that we break it up so that there's only about 1000000 rows per table. So our child tables would be test_table_0000001_1000000, test_table_1000001_2000000, test_table_2000001_3000000, test_table_3000001_4000000, etc. So instead of passing in an offset of 3900000, you'd do a little math first and determine that the table that you want is table test_table_3000001_4000000 with an offset of 900000 instead. So something like:
SELECT * FROM test_table_3000001_4000000 ORDER BY id OFFSET 900000 LIMIT 100;
Now if sharding the table is out of the question, you might be able to use partial indexes to do something similar, but again, I'd recommend sharding first. Learn more about partial indexes here.
I hope that helps. (Also, I agree with Szymon Guz that you want an ORDER BY).
Edit: Note that if you need to delete rows or selectively exclude rows before getting your result of 100, then sharding by id will become very hard to deal with (as pointed out by Denis; and sharding by id is not great to begin with). But if your 'just' paginating the data, and you only insert or edit (not a common thing, but it does happen; logs come to mind), then sharding by id can be done reasonably (though I'd still choose something else to shard on).
How about if paginate based on IDs instead of offset/limit?
The following query will give IDs which split all the records into chunks of size per_page. It doesn't depend on were records deleted or not
SELECT id AS from_id FROM (
SELECT id, (ROW_NUMBER() OVER(ORDER BY id DESC)) AS num FROM test_table
) AS rn
WHERE num % (per_page + 1) = 0;
With these from_IDs you can add links to the page. Iterate over :from_ids with index and add the following link to the page:
:from_id_index
When user visits the page retrieve records with ID which is greater than requested :from_id:
SELECT * FROM test_table WHERE ID >= :from_id ORDER BY id DESC LIMIT :per_page
For the first page link with from_id=0 will work
1
To avoid slow pagination with big tables always use auto-increment primary key then use the query below:
SELECT * FROM test_table WHERE id > (SELECT min(id) FROM test_table WHERE id > ((1 * 10) - 10)) ORDER BY id DESC LIMIT 10
1: is the page number
10: is the records per page
Tested and work well with 50 millions records.
There are two simple approaches to solve such a problem
Splitting the query into two subqueries that the first one do all the heavy job on index-only scan as described here
Create calculated index that holds the offset as described here, this can be enhanced using window functions.
I have a table briefly structured like this:
tn( id integer NOT NULL primary key DEFAULT nextval('tn_sequence'),
create_dt TIMESTAMP NOT NULL DEFAULT NOW(),
...............
deleted boolean );
create_dt is the timestamp when the row is inserted into the database.
deleted indicates that the row is or no longer useful.
And I have the following queries:
select * from tn where create_dt > ( NOW() - interval '150 seconds ) and deleted = FALSE;
select * from tn where create_dt < ( NOW() - interval '150 seconds ) and deleted = FALSE;
My question is how these query will slow down when the number of rows increase? For instance, when the number of rows exceeds 10K, 20K, or 100K, will it make a big impact on the speed? Is there any way I can optimize these queries? Note that every 5 seconds I will turn the column 'deleted' of rows which are older than 150 seconds into 'TRUE'.
The effect of table growth on performance will depend on the query plan chosen, available indexes, the selectivity of the query, and lots of other factors. EXPLAIN ANALYZE on the query might help. In short, if your query only selects a few rows and can use a simple b-tree index then it won't usually slow down tons, only a little as the index grows. On the other hand queries using complex non-indexed conditions or returning lots of rows could perform very badly indeed.
Your issue appears to mirror that in the question How should we handle rows which won't be queried once they are old in PostgreSQL?
The advice given there should apply:
Use a partial index with the condition WHERE (not deleted); or
partition on 'deleted' with constraint exclusion enabled.
For example, you might:
CREATE INDEX create_dt_when_not_deleted_idx
ON tn (create_dt)
WHERE (NOT deleted);
This includes only rows where deleted = 'f' (assuming deleted is `not null) in the index. This isn't the same as having them gone from the table completely.
Nothing changes with full table sequential scans, the deleted='t' rows must still be scanned; and
There's more I/O than if the deleted = 't' rows weren't there because any given heap page is likely to contain a mix of deleted = 't' and deleted = 'f' rows.
You can reduce the impact of the latter by CLUSTERing on an index that includes deleted. Again, this will have no effect on sequential scans. To help with sequential scans you would have to partition the table on deleted.
Pg 9.2's index only scans should (I think, haven't tested) use the partial index. When an index only scan is possible the partial index should be as fast as an index on a table containing only the deleted = 'f' rows.
Note that you'll need to keep table and index bloat under control. Ensure autovaccum runs very frequently and use a current version of PostgreSQL that doesn't need things like manually-managed free space map and has the latest, best-behaved autovacuum. I'd recommend 9.0 or above, preferably 9.1 or 9.2. Tune autovacuum to run aggressively.
When tuning and testing performance - test your queries with EXPLAIN ANALYZE, don't just guess.
I'm querying to return all rows from a table except those that are in some list of values that is constant at query time. E.g. SELECT * FROM table WHERE id IN (%), and % is guaranteed to be a list of values, not be a subquery. However, this list of values may be up to 1000 elements long in some cases. Should I limit this to a smaller sublist (as few as 50-100 elements is as low as I can go, in this case) or will there be a negligible performance gain?
I assume it's a large table, otherwise it wouldn't matter much.
Depending on table size and number of keys, this may turn into a sequence scan. If there are many IN keys, Postgres often chooses not to use an index for it. The more keys, the bigger the chance of a sequence scan.
If you use another indexed column in WHERE, like:
select * from table where id in (%) and my_date > '2010-01-01';
It's likely to fetch all rows matching the indexed (my_date) columns, and then perform an in-memory scan on them.
Using a JOIN to a persistent or temporary table may, but does not have to help. It still will need to locate all the rows, either with a nested loop (unlikely for large data), or for a hash/merge join.
I would say the solution is:
Use as few IN keys as possible.
Use other criteria for indexing and querying whenever possible. If IN requires an in-memory scan of all rows, at least there will be fewer of them thanks to additional criteria.
Use a temporary table to JOIN, gives better performance and has no limits. An IN() having a 1000 arguments, will give you problems in any database.