Is it possible to predict the amount of disk space/memory that will be used by a basic index in PostgreSQL 9.0?
E.g. If I have a default B-tree index on an integer column in a table of 1 million rows, how much space would be taken up by the index? Is the entire index held in memory at all times?
Not really a definitive answer, but I looked at a table in a 9.0 test system I have with a couple of int indexes on a table of 280k rows. The indexs all report a size of 6232kb. So roughly 22 bytes per row.
There is no way to say that. It depends on the type of operations you will make, as PostgreSQL stores many different versions of the same row, including row versions stored in index files.
Just make the table you are interested in and check it.
Related
I have a table with 100Mil+ records and 237 fields.
One of the fields is a varchar 1 field with three possible values (Y,N,I)
I need to find all of the records with N.
Right now I have a b-tree index built and the query below takes about 20 min to run.
Is there another index I can use to get better performance?
SELECT * FROM tableone WHERE export_value='N';
Assuming your values are roughly equally distributed (say at least 15% of each value) and roughly equally distributed throughout the table (some physically at the beginning, some in the middle, some at the end) then no.
If you think about it you'll see why. You'll have to look up tens of millions of disk blocks in the index and then fetch them from the disk one by one. By the time you have done that, it would have been quicker to just scan the whole table and pick out the values as they match. The planner knows this and would probably not use the index at all.
However - if you only have 17 rows with "N" or they are all very recently added to the table and so physically happen to be close to each other then yes, and index can help.
If you only had a few rows with "N" you would have mentioned it, so we can ignore that one.
If however you mostly insert to this table you might find a BRIN index helpful. That can let the planner see that e.g. the first 80% of your table doesn't have any "N" blocks and so it just needs to look at the last bit.
We have discussions with our development staff over the use of VARCHAR columns as they define every varchar fileds as varchar(255),varchar(500),... and much bigger than the maximum length of the field,
does varchar's length have any effect on performance in db2? We have find that it is recommended to use char instead of varchar for column of 30 bytes or less and our concern is about varchar fileds that are greater than 30 bytes.
Allowing excessive column length is not a good idea. If you allow, let’s say, a FirstName column to have maximum length 500, you may find quite a long irrelevant story there eventually, because why not if it’s allowed :)
As for performance implications.
The only problem may be here, if Extended row size is turned on for the database (you simply can’t create too “wide” table otherwise), and the total length of the row exceeds the tablespace page size. Some varchar column value gets out from the data page, and more IO will be needed to access such a row in future. You should keep in mind such a behavior. And the probability of such events is higher in case of uncontrolled varchar columns length.
This can have an performance hit with ORGANIZE BY COLUMN tables. There is a limit in the total declared width that can be processed within the Columnar Data Engine, if this limit is breached in a query plan, the remainder of the query will be processed in the Row Data Engine.
I have a table with 28 million rows that I want to update. It has around 60 columns and a ID column (primary key) with an index created on it. I created four new columns and I want to populate them with the data from four columns from other table which also has an ID column with an index created on it. Both tables have the same amount of rows and just the primary key and the index on the IDENTI column. The query has been running for 15 hours and since it is high priority work, we are starting to get nervous about it and we don't have so much time to experiment with queries. We have never update a table so big (7 GB), so we are not sure if this amount of time is normal.
This is the query:
UPDATE consolidated
SET IDEDUP2=uni.IDEDUP2
USE21=uni.USE21
USE22=uni.USE22
PESOXX2=uni.PESOXX2
FROM uni_group uni, consolidated con
WHERE con.IDENTI=uni.IDENTI
How can I make it faster? Is it possible? If not, is there a way to check how much longer it is going to take (without killing the process)?
Just as additional information, we have ran before much more complex queries for 3 million row tables (postgis) and It has taken it about 15 hours as well.
You should not repeat the target table in the FROM clause. Your statement creates a cartesian join of the consolidated table with itself, which is not what you want.
You should use the following:
UPDATE consolidated con
SET IDEDUP2=uni.IDEDUP2
USE21=uni.USE21
USE22=uni.USE22
PESOXX2=uni.PESOXX2
FROM uni_group uni
WHERE con.IDENTI = uni.IDENTI
I was using hstore, Postgresql 9.3.4, to store a count for each time an event happened in a given day, with an update like the following.
days_count = days_count || hstore('x', (coalesce((days_count -> 'x')::integer, 0) + 1)::text)
Where x is the day of the year. After running a simulation of expected behavior for production I ended up with a table that was 150MB + 2GB Toast + 25-30MB for the index, after Analyze and Vacuum.
I am now instead breaking up the above column into one for each month like the following
y_month_days_count = y_month_days_count || hstore('x', (coalesce((y_month_days_count -> 'x')::integer, 0) + 1)::text)
Where x is the day of the month, and y is the month of the year.
I am still running the simulation right now, but so far at third of the way done I am at 60MB + A pretty steady 20-30MB of Toast + 25-30MB for the index. Which means in the end I should end up with about 180MB + 30-40MB for Toast + 25MB-30MB for the index after Analyze and Vacuum.
So first is there any known issues with Hstore and Toast bloat that would explain my issue with my first set up?
Second will my current solution of breaking up the columns cause any type of issues with hstore and performance in the future because of the number of hstore columns on one table? It seems to be steady now with row numbers in the hundred of thousands, and while I know more columns can make things slower, I am unsure if this is worse with hstore columns.
Finally I did find something out. I have one hstore column that ends up representing each hour a day, so it has 24 different keys. When I run the simulation for just this column I end up with almost no toast, in the KB, but when I run the whole simulation, with the days broken up into months columns, my largest hstore has 52 keys.
So for a simple store of either a counter or a word or two, the max number of keys before I see any amount of toast for hstore is between 24 and 52 keys.
So first is there any known issues with Hstore and Toast bloat that would explain my issue with my first set up?
Yes.
When you update any part of an out-of-line stored TOASTed field like text, hstore or json the whole field must be re-written as a new row version. This is a consequence of MVCC - it's necessary to retain a copy of every version of the row that might still be visible to another transaction.
The old one can be vacuumed away when it's no longer required by any running transaction, so in practice this has minimal impact so long as autovacuum is running aggressively enough.
So if you're updating lots of rows with big text, hstore or json fields, or updating them frequently, tune autovacuum up so it runs more often and does work faster. Make sure you don't have long running <IDLE> in transaction connections.
You say the table sizes you quoted were "after analyze and vacuum" but I'm guessing you only ran a regular vacuum, so the table bloat would've been freed for re-use by PostgreSQL but not released back to the OS. See if VACUUM FULL compacts it.
Will my current solution of breaking up the columns cause any type of issues with hstore and performance in the future because of the number of hstore columns on one table?
Depends on your query patterns and workload, but probably not.
I have been asked to determine how much data our application uses and how fast it is growing. The problem is many applications share the same database and tables with a column being used to determine which application the data belongs to. It is a DB2 database.
Is there any way to find the size in bytes of all the columns a table uses for a given row? It is important that I select only those rows that belong to my application.
If a column is not nullable I do not include it in the SQL I just multiply its size by the row count. I am primarily trying to determine the average size of nullable and variable size columns (we use VARCHAR and BLOB).
At the moment what I am doing looks something like this:
SELECT VALUE(LENGTH(COLUMN_1), 0) AS LEN_COL_1, repeat for each variable size column
FROM TABLE T
WHERE T.APP_ID = my app
The most accurate way to determine size would be to look at the sizes of the files that make up the DB2 tables.
Divide the file sizes by the percentage of rows that belong to your application.
This way, you count most of DB2's overhead size, including indexes.