I have a query that feels like it is taking more time then it should be. This only applies on the first query for a given set of parameters, so when cached there is no issue.
I am not sure what to expect, however, given the setup and settings I was hoping someone could shed some light on a few questions and give some insight into what can be done to speed up the query. The table in question is fairly large and Postgres estimates around 155963000 in it (14 GB).
select ts, sum(amp) as total_amp, sum(230 * factor) as wh
from data_cbm_aggregation_15_min
where virtual_id in (1818) and ts between '2015-02-01 00:00:00' and '2015-03-31 23:59:59'
and deleted is null
group by ts
order by ts
When I started looking into this the query it took around 15 seconds, after some changes I have gotten it to around 10 seconds which still seems long for a simply query like this. Here are the results from explain analyze: http://explain.depesz.com/s/97V1. Note the reason why GroupAggregate returns the same amount of rows is this example only has one virtual_id being used, but there can be more.
Table being queried, it has values inserted into it every 15 minutes
CREATE TABLE data_cbm_aggregation_15_min (
virtual_id integer NOT NULL,
ts timestamp without time zone NOT NULL,
amp real,
recs smallint,
min_amp real,
max_amp real,
deleted boolean,
factor real DEFAULT 0.25,
min_amp_ts timestamp without time zone,
max_amp_ts timestamp without time zone
)
ALTER TABLE data_cbm_aggregation_15_min ALTER COLUMN virtual_id SET STATISTICS 1000;
ALTER TABLE data_cbm_aggregation_15_min ALTER COLUMN ts SET STATISTICS 1000;
The index that is used in the query
CREATE UNIQUE INDEX idx_data_cbm_aggregation_15_min_virtual_id_ts
ON data_cbm_aggregation_15_min USING btree (virtual_id, ts DESC);
ALTER TABLE data_cbm_aggregation_15_min
CLUSTER ON idx_data_cbm_aggregation_15_min_virtual_id_ts;
Other settings are default.
default_statistics_target = 100
maintenance_work_mem = 2GB
effective_cache_size = 11GB
work_mem = 256MB
shared_buffers = 3840MB
random_page_cost = 1
I have been following the Things to try before you post in https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Slow_Query_Questions and the results in a bit more detail were as follows:
random_page_cost since the index scan, while it seems not too special is miles ahead of the bitmap heap scan it tried doing instead when the random_page_cost was higher.virtual_id and ts columns which the index and WHERE conditions are based on. The query planner's estimated row count was much closer to the actual row count after changing this.the idx_data_cbm_aggregation_15_min_virtual_id_ts index did not seem to change much, not that I noticed.VACUUM manually did not change much, I am already running autovacuum so this was no surprise.REINDEX on the index shrunk it considerably (by almost 50%!) but it did not improve the speed by much.SELECT ts, sum(amp) AS total_amp, sum(factor) * 230 AS wh
FROM data_cbm_aggregation_15_min
WHERE virtual_id = 1818
AND ts >= '2015-02-01 00:00'
AND ts < '2015-04-01 00:00'
AND deleted IS NULL
GROUP BY ts
ORDER BY ts;
sum(230 * factor)sum(factor) * 230 The result is the same, even with NULL values.
ts between '2015-02-01 00:00:00' and '2015-03-31 23:59:59'BETWEEN is translated to ts >= lower AND ts <= upper anyway. It is always slightly faster to spell it out.
virtual_id in (1818)virtual_id = 1818.
CREATE INDEX data_cbm_aggregation_15_min_special_idx
ON data_cbm_aggregation_15_min (virtual_id, ts, amp, factor)
WHERE deleted IS NULL;
I see nothing in your question that would suggest DESC in your original index. While Index Scan Backward is almost as fast as a plain Index Scan, it's still better to drop the modifier.
Most importantly, there are index-only scans since Postgres 9.2. The two index columns I appended (amp, factor) only make sense if you get index-only scans out of it.
Since you obviously are not interested in deleted rows, make it a partial index. Only pays if you have more than a few deleted rows in the table.
If you have other large parts of the table that can be excluded, add more conditions - and remember to repeat the condition in the query (even if it seems redundant) so Postgres understands that the index is applicable.
Reordering table columns like this would save 8 bytes per row:
CREATE TABLE data_cbm_aggregation_15_min (
virtual_id integer NOT NULL,
recs smallint,
deleted boolean,
ts timestamp NOT NULL,
amp real,
min_amp real,
max_amp real,
factor real DEFAULT 0.25,
min_amp_ts timestamp,
max_amp_ts timestamp
);
Related:
The first query call can be substantially more expensive for very big tables, since the whole table cannot be cached. Subsequent calls profit from the populated cache. Postgres caches blocks, not necessarily whole tables.
One more thing that can be important for the first call. Due to the MVCC model of Postgres it has to maintain visibility information. When reading pages of a table the first time since the last write operation, Postgres opportunistically updates visibility information, which can impose some extra cost for the first access (and help a lot for subsequent calls). More in the manual here. Related answer on dba.SE:
SET STATISTICS 1000 for ts and virtual_id was an excellent idea, but the effect was largely nullified by setting random_page_cost = 1, which basically forces an index scan for this query either way.
random_page_cost = 1 is telling Postgres that random access is just as cheap as sequential access. This makes sense for a DB that (almost) completely resides in cache. For a DB with huge tables like yours, this setting seems too extreme (even if it gets Postgres to favor the desired index scan). Set it to random_page_cost = 1.1 or probably higher.
A bitmap index scan is typically a good plan for the first call of the query you presented - for data distributed randomly across the table. Since you clustered the table just like you need it for this query, an index scan is more efficient. The question is: will your table stay clustered?
Your settings for work_mem and other resources depend on how much RAM you have, the speed of your disks, on access pattern, how many concurrent connections you typically have, what other programs on the server compete for resources, etc. work_mem = 256MB seems too high. You don't need nearly as much for the presented query. Setting it that high may actually harm performance, because it reduces RAM available to cache.
REINDEX is not redundant immediately after CLUSTER, since that recreates all indexes anyway. You must have run REINDEX before cluster, or you have heavy write access on the table to get so much bloat again already.
Upgrade to Postgres 9.4 (or the upcoming 9.5, currently alpha). Version 9.2 is 3 years old now, the latest version has received many improvements.
The query plan suggests that nothing is actually aggregated. rows=4,117 are read from the index and rows=4,117 remain after GroupAggregate. Looks like rows are unique on ts already? Then you can remove the aggregation completely and make it a simple SELECT ...
If that's just a misleading EXPLAIN output and you typically output much fewer rows than are read, a MATERIALIZED VIEW with index on ts would be another option. Especially in combination with Postgres 9.4, which introduces REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW CONCURRENTLY.