Unix Technical Forum

Re:

This is a discussion on Re: within the Pgsql Performance forums, part of the PostgreSQL category; --> On 14-Jan-07, at 7:31 AM, Rolf Østvik (HA/EXA) wrote: > 12345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890 12345678901234567890 > 1234567890 > 00000000001111111111222222222233333333334444444444 55555555556666666666 > 7777777777 ...


Go Back   Unix Technical Forum > Database Server Software > PostgreSQL > Pgsql Performance

Re: Re:

FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply

 

LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 04-19-2008, 10:05 AM
Dave Cramer
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re:

On 14-Jan-07, at 7:31 AM, Rolf Østvik (HA/EXA) wrote:

> 12345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890 12345678901234567890
> 1234567890
> 00000000001111111111222222222233333333334444444444 55555555556666666666
> 7777777777
> I have been trying to change a many parameters on server versions
> 7.4.15, 8.1.4, 8.2.0 and 8.2.1. I still hope a have managed to keep
> my head straigth and that i do not present to much faulty information.
>
> The cost estimates generated by the different server versions differ.
> I have a query which (as far as i can tell) have some strange
> differences
> between 8.2.0 8.2.1. I can provide information about that if anyone
> want
> it.
>
> Generally these parameters are used.
> default_statistics_target = 10
> (4 selected columns is set to 1000)
> (I have tested with 1000 as default value
> but that did not have an impact)
> (analyzed whenever value was changed)
> shared_buffers = 64000 (512MB)
> work_mem/sort_mem = variable, see different run's
> effective_cache_size = 128000 (1G)
> random_page_cost = 2
> cpu_index_tuple_cost = 0.001
> cpu_operator_cost = 0.025
> cpu_tuple_cost = 0.01

Can you tell us how big the machine is ? How much memory it has ? Not
that it is terribly important, but it's a data point for me.

>
> I have tested with different values for random_page_cost and
> cpu_*_cost but it have not made a difference.
> I have tried with random_page cost between 1 and 8,
> and cpu_*_cost with standard value and 50x bigger)
>
> Query is:
> explain
> analyze
> select
> ur.id as ur_id,
> ur.unit_ref,
> ur.execution_time,
> u.serial_number,
> to_char(ur.start_date_time, 'YYYY-MM-DD'),
> count(*) as num_test
> from
> uut_result as ur
> inner join units as u
> on ur.unit_ref=u.ref
> inner join step_result as sr
> on ur.id=sr.uut_result
> where
> ur.id between 174000 and 174000+999
> group by
> ur.id,
> ur.unit_ref,
> ur.execution_time,
> u.serial_number,
> ur.start_date_time
> -- order by
> -- ur.start_date_time
> ;
> NB: order by clause is used in some results below.
>
> === Run 1:
> Detect work_mem setting influence (See also Run 2)
> - server version 8.2.1
> - Query executed without "order by" clause
> - work_mem = 8600;
> QUERY PLAN
> ---------------------------------------------
> GroupAggregate (cost=44857.70..47976.79 rows=95972 width=37)
> (actual time=1802.716..2017.337 rows=1000 loops=1)
> -> Sort (cost=44857.70..45097.63 rows=95972 width=37) (actual
> time=1802.461..1892.743 rows=138810 loops=1)
> Sort Key: ur.id, ur.unit_ref, ur.execution_time,
> u.serial_number, ur.start_date_time
> -> Nested Loop (cost=0.00..36915.87 rows=95972 width=37)
> (actual time=0.063..268.186 rows=138810 loops=1)
> -> Nested Loop (cost=0.00..5017.65 rows=981
> width=37) (actual time=0.047..11.919 rows=1000 loops=1)
> -> Index Scan using uut_result_pkey on
> uut_result ur (cost=0.00..1538.77 rows=1000 width=24) (actual
> time=0.029..1.727 rows=1000 loops=1)
> Index Cond: ((id >= 174000) AND (id <=
> 174999))
> -> Index Scan using units_pkey on units u
> (cost=0.00..3.47 rows=1 width=17) (actual time=0.006..0.007 rows=1
> loops=1000)
> Index Cond: (ur.unit_ref = u.ref)
> -> Index Scan using uut_result_key on step_result
> sr (cost=0.00..30.82 rows=136 width=4) (actual time=0.011..0.125
> rows=139 loops=1000)
> Index Cond: (ur.id = sr.uut_result) Total
> runtime: 2021.833 ms
> (12 rows)
>
>
> === Run 2:
> Detect work_mem setting influence (See also Run 1)
> - server version 8.2.1
> - Query executed without "order by" clause
> - work_mem = 8700;
> QUERY PLAN
> ---------------------------------------------
> HashAggregate (cost=38355.45..39795.03 rows=95972 width=37)
> (actual time=436.406..439.867 rows=1000 loops=1)
> -> Nested Loop (cost=0.00..36915.87 rows=95972 width=37)
> (actual time=0.066..256.235 rows=138810 loops=1)
> -> Nested Loop (cost=0.00..5017.65 rows=981 width=37)
> (actual time=0.049..10.858 rows=1000 loops=1)
> -> Index Scan using uut_result_pkey on uut_result
> ur (cost=0.00..1538.77 rows=1000 width=24) (actual
> time=0.031..1.546 rows=1000 loops=1)
> Index Cond: ((id >= 174000) AND (id <= 174999))
> -> Index Scan using units_pkey on units u
> (cost=0.00..3.47 rows=1 width=17) (actual time=0.005..0.006 rows=1
> loops=1000)
> Index Cond: (ur.unit_ref = u.ref)
> -> Index Scan using uut_result_key on step_result sr
> (cost=0.00..30.82 rows=136 width=4) (actual time=0.011..0.123
> rows=139 loops=1000)
> Index Cond: (ur.id = sr.uut_result) Total runtime:
> 441.193 ms (10 rows)
>
> === Comment on Run 1 versus Run 2 (adjusted work_mem) ===
> The difference in setup is value of work_mem. Bigger work_mem gave
> different
> cost estimates and selected HashAggregate instead of GroupAggregate.
> Result was a reduced runtime. I guess that is as expected.
>
> (One remark, the switchover between different plans on version
> 8.1.5 was for
> work_mem values of 6800 and 6900)
>
> === Run 3 (with order by clause):
> Test "group by" and "order by" (See also Run 1 and Run 4)
> - server version 8.2.1
> - Query executed with "order by" clause
> - work_mem = 8700
> (tried values from 2000 to 128000 with same cost and plan as
> result)
> QUERY PLAN
> ---------------------------------------------
> GroupAggregate (cost=44857.70..47976.79 rows=95972 width=37)
> (actual time=1891.464..2114.462 rows=1000 loops=1)
> -> Sort (cost=44857.70..45097.63 rows=95972 width=37) (actual
> time=1891.263..1982.137 rows=138810 loops=1)
> Sort Key: ur.start_date_time, ur.id, ur.unit_ref,
> ur.execution_time, u.serial_number
> -> Nested Loop (cost=0.00..36915.87 rows=95972 width=37)
> (actual time=0.064..264.358 rows=138810 loops=1)
> -> Nested Loop (cost=0.00..5017.65 rows=981
> width=37) (actual time=0.047..12.253 rows=1000 loops=1)
> -> Index Scan using uut_result_pkey on
> uut_result ur (cost=0.00..1538.77 rows=1000 width=24) (actual
> time=0.029..1.743 rows=1000 loops=1)
> Index Cond: ((id >= 174000) AND (id <=
> 174999))
> -> Index Scan using units_pkey on units u
> (cost=0.00..3.47 rows=1 width=17) (actual time=0.006..0.007 rows=1
> loops=1000)
> Index Cond: (ur.unit_ref = u.ref)
> -> Index Scan using uut_result_key on step_result
> sr (cost=0.00..30.82 rows=136 width=4) (actual time=0.011..0.124
> rows=139 loops=1000)
> Index Cond: (ur.id = sr.uut_result) Total
> runtime: 2118.986 ms
> (12 rows)
>
> === Run 4 (with order by clause, on server 8.1.4):
> Test "group by" and "order by" (See also Run 1 and Run 3)
> - server version 8.1.4
> - Query executed with "order by" clause
> - work_mem = 6900
> (same plan select for all work_mem values above 6900)
> QUERY PLAN
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> Sort (cost=46578.83..46820.66 rows=96734 width=37) (actual
> time=505.562..505.988 rows=1000 loops=1)
> Sort Key: ur.start_date_time
> -> HashAggregate (cost=37117.40..38568.41 rows=96734 width=37)
> (actual time=498.697..502.374 rows=1000 loops=1)
> -> Nested Loop (cost=0.00..35666.39 rows=96734 width=37)
> (actual time=0.058..288.270 rows=138810 loops=1)
> -> Nested Loop (cost=0.00..5342.20 rows=984
> width=37) (actual time=0.042..11.773 rows=1000 loops=1)
> -> Index Scan using uut_result_pkey on
> uut_result ur (cost=0.00..1626.46 rows=1003 width=24) (actual
> time=0.020..1.868 rows=1000 loops=1)
> Index Cond: ((id >= 174000) AND (id <=
> 174999))
> -> Index Scan using units_pkey on units u
> (cost=0.00..3.69 rows=1 width=17) (actual time=0.006..0.007 rows=1
> loops=1000)
> Index Cond: ("outer".unit_ref = u.ref)
> -> Index Scan using uut_result_key on step_result
> sr (cost=0.00..29.09 rows=138 width=4) (actual time=0.006..0.146
> rows=139 loops=1000)
> Index Cond: ("outer".id = sr.uut_result)
> Total runtime: 507.452 ms
> (12 rows)
>
> === Coemment on selected plan for 8.2.1 when using "order by" ===
> Run 3 (8.2.1 with order by) selects same plan as Run1 (without
> order by).
> It does hovever exist a better plan for Run3, and 8.1.5 manages to
> select
> that plan (shown in Run 4).
> Both versions (8.1.5 and 8.2.1) uses same plan until the uppermost
> Nested Loop.
> The big difference is that 8.1.5 then will do HashAggregate, and
> then sort,
> while 8.2.1 will does a sort and then a GroupAggregate.
>
> I have tried different combinations for statistics_target, cpu_*_cost,
> work_mem and random page cost without finding a solution.
>
> Anyone with an idea on what to do? Feel free to suggest one of the
> above
> parameters, i might have overlooked some combination.
>
> I am a little unsure on how much extra information is necessery, but i
> will provide some:
>
> The three tables are
> units List of produced items
> uut_Result Summary of test result
> step_result Individuel tests results
> The system is a production test log. (there are a lot of units which
> does not have an entry in uut_result).
>
> Table "public.units"
> Column | Type
> | Modifiers
> ------------------+-----------------------
> +-----------------------------
> ------------------+-----------------------
> +-----------------------------
> ------------------+-----------------------+----------
> ref | integer | not null default nextval
> (('public.units_ref_seq'::text)::regclass)
> serial_number | character varying(30) | not null
> product_ref | integer | not null
> week | integer | not null
> status | integer | not null
> comment | text |
> last_user | text | default "current_user"()
> last_date | date | default
> ('now'::text)::date
> product_info_ref | integer | not null
> Indexes:
> "units_pkey" PRIMARY KEY, btree (ref)
> "units_no_sno_idx" UNIQUE, btree (product_ref, week) WHERE
> serial_number::text = ''::text
> "units_serial_number_idx" UNIQUE, btree (serial_number,
> product_info_ref) WHERE serial_number::text <> ''::text
> "units_product_ref_key" btree (product_ref)
> Triggers:
> ct_unit_update_log AFTER UPDATE ON units FOR EACH ROW EXECUTE
> PROCEDURE cf_unit_update_log()
> ct_units_update_product_info_ref BEFORE INSERT OR UPDATE ON
> units FOR EACH ROW EXECUTE PROCEDURE
> cf_units_update_product_info_ref()
> select count(*) from units => 292 676 rows
>
> Table "public.uut_result"
> Column | Type
> | Modifiers
> -------------------+-----------------------------
> +----------------------
> -------------------+-----------------------------
> +----------------------
> -------------------+-----------------------------+--------
> id | integer | not null
> uut_serial_number | text |
> unit_ref | integer |
> order_unit_ref | integer |
> user_login_name | text |
> start_date_time | timestamp without time zone |
> execution_time | double precision |
> uut_status | text |
> uut_error_code | integer |
> uut_error_message | text |
> last_user | text | default
> "current_user"()
> last_timestamp | timestamp with time zone | default
> ('now'::text)::timestamp(6) with time zone
> test_name | text |
> teststation_name | text |
> teststation_ref | integer |
> process_step_ref | integer |
> Indexes:
> "uut_result_pkey" PRIMARY KEY, btree (id)
> "uut_result_start_date_time_idx" btree (start_date_time)
> "uut_result_test_name" btree (test_name)
> Triggers:
> ct_set_process_step_ref BEFORE INSERT OR UPDATE ON uut_result
> FOR EACH ROW EXECUTE PROCEDURE cf_set_process_step_ref() select
> count(*) from uut_result => 180 111 rows
>
> Table "public.step_result"
> Column | Type | Modifiers
> --------------------+------------------+-----------
> id | integer | not null
> uut_result | integer |
> step_parent | integer |
> step_name | text |
> step_extra_info | text |
> step_type | text |
> status | text |
> report_text | text |
> error_code | integer |
> error_message | text |
> module_time | double precision |
> total_time | double precision |
> num_loops | integer |
> num_passed | integer |
> num_failed | integer |
> ending_loop_index | integer |
> loop_index | integer |
> interactive_exenum | integer |
> step_group | text |
> step_index | integer |
> order_number | integer |
> pass_fail | integer |
> numeric_value | double precision |
> high_limit | double precision |
> low_limit | double precision |
> comp_operator | text |
> string_value | text |
> string_limit | text |
> button_pressed | integer |
> response | text |
> exit_code | integer |
> num_limits_in_file | integer |
> num_rows_in_file | integer |
> num_limits_applied | integer |
> sequence_name | text |
> sequence_file_path | text |
> Indexes:
> "step_result_pkey" PRIMARY KEY, btree (id)
> "step_parent_key" btree (step_parent)
> "temp_index_idx" btree (sequence_file_path)
> "uut_result_key" btree (uut_result)
> select count(*) from step_result => 17 624 657 rows
>
> Best regards
> Rolf Østvik
>
> ---------------------------(end of
> broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org
>


---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend

Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Reply

« Performance of Parser? | Large table performance »

Thread Tools
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:09 AM.

Contact Us - Unix Technical Forums - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.2.0
www.UnixAdminTalk.com