I have got a PostgreSQL table that covers time intervals.
This is a simplified structure of my table
CREATE TABLE intervals (
name varchar(40),
time_from timestamp,
time_to timestamp
);
The table contains millions of records, but, if you apply a filter in a specific point of time in the past, the number of records for which
time_from <= [requested time] <= time_to
are always very limited in number (not more than 3k results). So, a query like this one
SELECT *
FROM intervals
WHERE time_from <= '2020-01-01T10:00:00' and time_to >= '2020-01-01T10:00:00'
is supposed to return a relatively small amount of results, and, in theory, it should be quite fast if I used the correct index. But it's not fast at all
I tried adding a combined index on time_from and time_to, but the engine doesn't pick it.
Seq Scan on intervals (cost=0.00..156152.46 rows=428312 width=32) (actual time=13.223..3599.840 rows=4981 loops=1)
Filter: ((time_from <= '2020-01-01T10:00:00') AND (time_to >= '2020-01-01T10:00:00'))
Rows Removed by Filter: 2089650
Planning Time: 0.159 ms
Execution Time: 3600.618 ms
What type of index should I add, in order to speed up this query?
A btree index cannot be very efficient here. It can quickly throw out everything whose time_from > '2020-01-01T10:00:00', but that is probably not all that much of the table (at least, not if your table goes back for many years). Once the first column of the index has been consumed in this way, the next column cannot be used very efficiently. It can only jump to a specific part of time_to values within the ties of time_from, and that is just not very useful as there are probably not all that many ties. (At least, not that it can prove to itself while planning your query).
What you need is a gist index, which specializes in this kind of multi-dimensional thing:
create extension btree_gist ;
create index on intervals using gist (time_from,time_to);
This index will support your query as written. Another possibility is to index the time ranges and index those, rather than separate begin and end point.
-- this one does not need btree_gist.
create index on intervals using gist (tsrange(time_from,time_to));
But this index forces you to write the query differently:
SELECT * FROM intervals
WHERE tsrange(time_from,time_to) #> '2020-01-01T10:00:00'::timestamp
Today I faced a strange issue. I have a big table in postgres (table T) which has many columns (col1..col100) and I have index I1 on (col2,col3,col4).
Now
explain select col2,col3 from T;
shows seq scan for the table, not using the index. I think it should be like Index only scan as we are selecting columns which are in index.
What could be the reason ?
If the SELECT returns more than approximately 5-10%(depends on configuration settings and the storage of the data as well. It's not a hard number) of all rows in the table, a sequential scan is much faster than an index scan.
Index scan requires several IO operations for each row (look up the row in the index, then retrieve the row from the heap). Sequential scan only requires a single IO for each row - or even less because a block (page) on the disk contains more than one row, so more than one row can be fetched with a single IO operation.
This is true for other DBMS as well - some optimizations as "index only scans" taken aside (but for a SELECT * it's highly unlikely such a DBMS would go for an "index only scan")
First of all read this and analyze. I think this may be helpful:
https://thoughtbot.com/blog/why-postgres-wont-always-use-an-index
I have the following table
create table log
(
id bigint default nextval('log_id_seq'::regclass) not null
constraint log_pkey
primary key,
level integer,
category varchar(255),
log_time timestamp,
prefix text,
message text
);
It contains like 3 million of rows.
I'm comparing the following queries:
EXPLAIN SELECT id
FROM log
WHERE log_time < now() - INTERVAL '3 month'
LIMIT 100000
which yields the following plan:
Limit (cost=0.00..19498.87 rows=100000 width=8)
-> Seq Scan on log (cost=0.00..422740.48 rows=2168025 width=8)
Filter: (log_time < (now() - '3 mons'::interval))
And the same query with ORDER BY id instruction added:
EXPLAIN SELECT id
FROM log
WHERE log_time < now() - INTERVAL '3 month'
ORDER BY id ASC
LIMIT 100000
which yields
Limit (cost=0.43..25694.15 rows=100000 width=8)
-> Index Scan using log_pkey on log (cost=0.43..557048.28 rows=2168031 width=8)
Filter: (log_time < (now() - '3 mons'::interval))
I have the following questions:
The absence of ORDER BY instruction allows Postgres not to care about the order of rows. They may be as well delivered sorted. Why it does not use index without ORDER BY?
How can Postgres use index in the first place in such a query? WHERE clause of the query contains a non-indexed column and to fetch that column, sequential database scan will be required, but the query with ORDER BY doesn't indicate that.
The Postgres manual page says:
For a query that requires scanning a large fraction of the table, an explicit sort is likely to be faster than using an index because it requires less disk I/O due to following a sequential access pattern
Can you please clarify this statement for me? Index is always ordered. And reading an ordered structure is always faster, it is always a sequential access (at least in terms of page scanning) than reading non-ordered data and then ordering it manually.
Can you please clarify this statement for me? Index is always ordered. And reading an ordered structure is always faster, it is always a sequential access (at least in terms of page scanning) than reading non-ordered data and then ordering it manually.
The index is read sequentially, yes, but postgres needs to follow up with a read of the rows from the table. That is, in most cases, if an index identifies 100 rows, then postgres will need to perform up to 100 random reads against the table.
Internally, the postgres planner weighs sequential and random reads differently, with random reads generally much more expensive. The settings seq_page_cost and random_page_cost determine those. There are other settings you can view and tinker with if you want, though I recommend being very conservative with modifications.
Let's go back to your earlier questions:
The absence of ORDER BY instruction allows Postgres not to care about the order of rows. They may be as well delivered sorted. Why it does not use index without ORDER BY?
The reason is the sort. As you note later, the index doesn't include the constraining column, so it doesn't make any sense to use the index. Instead, the planner is basically saying "read the whole table, figure out which rows conform to the constraint, and then return the first 100000 of them, in whatever order we find them".
The sort changes things. In that case, the planner is saying "we need to sort by this field, and we have an index which is already sorted, so read rows from the table in index order, checking against the constraint, until we have 100000 of them, and return that set".
You'll note that the cost estimates (e.g. '0.43..25694.15') are much higher for the second query -- the planner thinks that doing so many random reads from the index scan is going to cost significantly more than just reading the whole table at once with no sorting.
Hope that helps, and let me know if you have further questions.
explain analyze shows that postgres will use index scanning for my query that fetches rows and performs filtering by date (i.e., 2017-04-14 05:27:51.039):
explain analyze select * from tbl t where updated > '2017-04-14 05:27:51.039';
QUERY PLAN
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Index Scan using updated on tbl t (cost=0.43..7317.12 rows=10418 width=93) (actual time=0.011..0.515 rows=1179 loops=1)
Index Cond: (updated > '2017-04-14 05:27:51.039'::timestamp without time zone)
Planning time: 0.102 ms
Execution time: 0.720 ms
however running the same query but with different date filter '2016-04-14 05:27:51.039' shows that postgres will run the query using seq scan instead:
explain analyze select * from tbl t where updated > '2016-04-14 05:27:51.039';
QUERY PLAN
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seq Scan on tbl t (cost=0.00..176103.94 rows=5936959 width=93) (actual time=0.008..2005.455 rows=5871963 loops=1)
Filter: (updated > '2016-04-14 05:27:51.039'::timestamp without time zone)
Rows Removed by Filter: 947
Planning time: 0.100 ms
Execution time: 2910.086 ms
How does postgres decide on what to use, specifically when performing filtering by date?
The Postgres query planner bases its decisions on cost estimates and column statistics, which are gathered by ANALYZE and opportunistically by some other utility commands. That all happens automatically when autovacuum is on (by default).
The manual:
Most queries retrieve only a fraction of the rows in a table, due to
WHERE clauses that restrict the rows to be examined. The planner thus
needs to make an estimate of the selectivity of WHERE clauses, that
is, the fraction of rows that match each condition in the WHERE
clause. The information used for this task is stored in the
pg_statistic system catalog. Entries in pg_statistic are updated by
the ANALYZE and VACUUM ANALYZE commands, and are always approximate
even when freshly updated.
There is a row count (in pg_class), a list of most common values, etc.
The more rows Postgres expects to find, the more likely it will switch to a sequential scan, which is cheaper to retrieve large portions of a table.
Generally, it's index scan -> bitmap index scan -> sequential scan, the more rows are expected to be retrieved.
For your particular example, the important statistic is histogram_bounds, which give Postgres a rough idea how many rows have a greater value than the given one. There is the more convenient view pg_stats for the human eye:
SELECT histogram_bounds
FROM pg_stats
WHERE tablename = 'tbl'
AND attname = 'updated';
There is a dedicated chapter explaining row estimation in the manual.
Obviously, optimization of queries is tricky. This answer is not intended to dive into the specifics of the Postgres optimizer. Instead, it is intended to give you some background on how the decision to use an index is made.
Your first query is estimated to return 10,418 rows. When using an index, the following operations happen:
The engine uses the index to find the first value meeting the condition.
The engine then loops over the values, finishing when the condition is no longer true.
For each value in the index, the engine then looks up the data on the data page.
In other words, there is a little bit of overhead when using the index -- initializing the index and then looking up each data page individually.
When the engine does a full table scan it:
Starts with the first record on the first page
Does the comparison and accepts or rejects the record
Continues sequentially through all data pages
There is no additional overhead. Further, the engine can "pre-load" the next pages to be scanned while processing the current page. This overlap of I/O and processing is a big win.
The point I'm trying to make is that getting the balance between these two can be tricky. Somewhere between 10,418 and 5,936,959, Postgres decides that the index overhead (and fetching the pages randomly) costs more than just scanning the whole table.
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.