Postgres not using index on views
Hi,
I am seeing a performance problem with postgresql v 11.7 on views, and I am
wondering if anyone can tell me why or has any suggestion.
A table is created as:
CREATE TABLE "FBNK_CUSTOMER" (RECID VARCHAR(255) NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY,
XMLRECORD VARCHAR)
And contains only 180 rows.
Doing an explain plan on the view created over this gives:
EXPLAIN ANALYZE
select RECID from "V_FBNK_CUSTOMER"
Subquery Scan on "V_FBNK_CUSTOMER" (cost=0.00..19014.60 rows=180 width=7)
(actual time=459.601..78642.189 rows=180 loops=1)
-> Seq Scan on "FBNK_CUSTOMER" a (cost=0.00..19012.80 rows=180 width=14575)
(actual time=459.600..78641.950 rows=180 loops=1)
Planning Time: 0.679 ms
Execution Time: 78642.616 ms
Yet an Explain plan on the underlying table( on select RECID from
"FBNK_CUSTOMER") gives:
Seq Scan on "FBNK_CUSTOMER" (cost=0.00..22.80 rows=180 width=7) (actual
time=0.004..0.272 rows=180 loops=1)
Planning Time: 0.031 ms
Execution Time: 0.288 ms
So you can see that postgresql is not using the primary key index for RECID.
THIS IS NOT THE CASE FOR ORACLE where the primary key index is used in the
explain plan
The view is created similar to the following where extractValueJS is a stored
procedure that extracts a value from the VARCHAR XMLRECORD column.
CREATE VIEW "V_FBNK_CUSTOMER" as
SELECT a.RECID, a.XMLRECORD "THE_RECORD"
,a.RECID "CUSTOMER_CODE"
,a.RECID "CUSTOMER_NO"
,extractValueJS(a.XMLRECORD, 1, 0) "MNEMONIC"
,extractValueJS(a.XMLRECORD, 2, 0) "SHORT_NAME"
,extractValueJS(a.XMLRECORD, 2, -1) "SHORT_NAME_2"
, etc
, extractValueJS(a.XMLRECORD, 179, 9) "TESTER"
FROM
"FBNK_CUSTOMER" a
As well, the problem gets worse as columns are added to the view, irrespective
of the SELECTION columns and it seems to perform some activity behind.
Creating an empty view,
CREATE VIEW "V_FBNK_CUSTOMER_TEST" as
SELECT a.RECID, a.XMLRECORD "THE_RECORD"
,a.RECID "CUSTOMER_CODE"
,a.RECID "CUSTOMER_NO"
FROM
"FBNK_CUSTOMER" a- > 3 ms select RECID from
"V_FBNK_CUSTOMER_TEST"
CREATE VIEW "V_FBNK_CUSTOMER_TEST" as
SELECT a.RECID, a.XMLRECORD "THE_RECORD"
,a.RECID "CUSTOMER_CODE"
,a.RECID "CUSTOMER_NO"
,extractValueJS(a.XMLRECORD, 1, 0) "MNEMONIC"
FROM
"FBNK_CUSTOMER" a --> 54 ms select RECID from
"V_FBNK_CUSTOMER_TEST"
CREATE VIEW "V_FBNK_CUSTOMER_TEST" as
SELECT a.RECID, a.XMLRECORD "THE_RECORD"
,a.RECID "CUSTOMER_CODE"
,a.RECID "CUSTOMER_NO"
,extractValueJS(a.XMLRECORD, 1, 0) "MNEMONIC"
,extractValueJS(a.XMLRECORD, 2, 0) "SHORT_NAME"
FROM
"FBNK_CUSTOMER" a > 118 ms select RECID
from "V_FBNK_CUSTOMER_TEST"
The following query takes an extremely long time for only 180 rows, and what
this means is that we would have to index anything appearing in the where
clause for every table in order to use views because the views seem not to
consider the select clause. Why is that and does anyone know a way around this?
SELECT RECID FROM "V_FBNK_CUSTOMER" WHERE "TESTER" = '5.00' ORDER BY RECID
Sort (cost=19015.06..19015.06 rows=1 width=7) (actual
time=102172.500..102172.501 rows=1 loops=1)
Sort Key: "V_FBNK_CUSTOMER".recid
Sort Method: quicksort Memory: 25kB
-> Subquery Scan on "V_FBNK_CUSTOMER" (cost=0.00..19015.05 rows=1 width=7)
(actual time=91242.866..102172.474 rows=1 loops=1)
Filter: (("V_FBNK_CUSTOMER"."TESTER")::text = '5.00'::text)
Rows Removed by Filter: 179
-> Seq Scan on "FBNK_CUSTOMER" a (cost=0.00..19012.80 rows=180
width=14575) (actual time=613.455..102172.175 rows=180 loops=1)
Planning Time: 1.674 ms
Execution Time: 102174.015 ms
The information in this e-mail and any attachments is confidential and may be
legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee or addressees. Any
use or disclosure of the contents of this e-mail/attachments by a not intended
recipient is unauthorized and may be unlawful. If you have received this e-mail
in error please notify the sender. Please note that any views or opinions
presented in this e-mail are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
represent those of TEMENOS. We recommend that you check this e-mail and any
attachments against viruses. TEMENOS accepts no liability for any damage caused
by any malicious code or virus transmitted by this e-mail.
RE: Postgres not using index on views
Hi Justin, You said, " Is there a reason why you don't store the extracted value in its own column ?" RV>> It simply is the way the application stores the data. For Oracle we are storing in XML and JSON format, for postgres, due do limitations of XML api, we are storing in VARCHAR. We can't break it out into columns very easily because of the legacy application. You said, "It still did a seq scan on the table, so I'm not sure what this has to do with index scans ?" RV>> On Oracle it will use the primary key index because it detects that all of the columns in the select clause are indexable. With Postgres, it might be doing a seq scan but on a 180 rows, a select on the underlying table is many times faster than the same select on the view. It seems all of the view columns are being triggered which makes it incredibly slow. Thanks, Rick -Original Message- From: Justin Pryzby Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2020 6:59 AM To: Rick Vincent Cc: [email protected]; Manoj Kumar ; Herve Aubert Subject: Re: Postgres not using index on views On Mon, Apr 06, 2020 at 02:19:59PM +, Rick Vincent wrote: > I am seeing a performance problem with postgresql v 11.7 on views, and I am > wondering if anyone can tell me why or has any suggestion. > > A table is created as: > > CREATE TABLE "FBNK_CUSTOMER" (RECID VARCHAR(255) NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY, > XMLRECORD VARCHAR) > > And contains only 180 rows. > > Doing an explain plan on the view created over this gives: > > EXPLAIN ANALYZE > select RECID from "V_FBNK_CUSTOMER" > > > Subquery Scan on "V_FBNK_CUSTOMER" (cost=0.00..19014.60 rows=180 width=7) > (actual time=459.601..78642.189 rows=180 loops=1) > -> Seq Scan on "FBNK_CUSTOMER" a (cost=0.00..19012.80 rows=180 > width=14575) (actual time=459.600..78641.950 rows=180 loops=1) > > Yet an Explain plan on the underlying table( on select RECID from > "FBNK_CUSTOMER") gives: > > Seq Scan on "FBNK_CUSTOMER" (cost=0.00..22.80 rows=180 width=7) > (actual time=0.004..0.272 rows=180 loops=1) It still did a seq scan on the table, so I'm not sure what this has to do with index scans ? > The following query takes an extremely long time for only 180 rows, and what > this means is that we would have to index anything appearing in the where > clause for every table in order to use views because the views seem not to > consider the select clause. Why is that and does anyone know a way around > this? Is there a reason why you don't store the extracted value in its own column ? And maybe keep it up to date using an insert/update trigger on the xmlrecord column. -- Justin The information in this e-mail and any attachments is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee or addressees. Any use or disclosure of the contents of this e-mail/attachments by a not intended recipient is unauthorized and may be unlawful. If you have received this e-mail in error please notify the sender. Please note that any views or opinions presented in this e-mail are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of TEMENOS. We recommend that you check this e-mail and any attachments against viruses. TEMENOS accepts no liability for any damage caused by any malicious code or virus transmitted by this e-mail.
RE: Postgres not using index on views
Hi Tom,
The function is defined as below, so no use of VOLATILE. Let me know if you
need any other information. I am hoping the below will further clarify the
issue.
CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION extractValueJS (sVar text, nfm INTEGER, nvm INTEGER)
RETURNS VARCHAR as $$
declare
sRet text := '';
nSize int := 0;
retVal int := 0;
cVar text[] := regexp_split_to_array(sVar,'');
idx int := 1;
nStart int := 0;
nEnd int := 0;
begin
etc...
return sRet;
end;
$$ LANGUAGE plpgsql;
After reading you link.
Here is a better explain plan:
Explain on the table:
EXPLAIN (analyze,BUFFERS)
select RECID from "FBNK_CUSTOMER"
Seq Scan on "FBNK_CUSTOMER" (cost=0.00..22.80 rows=180 width=7) (actual
time=0.011..0.073 rows=180 loops=1)
Buffers: shared hit=21
Planning Time: 0.056 ms
Execution Time: 0.091 ms
Explain on the view:
EXPLAIN (analyze,BUFFERS)
select RECID from "V_FBNK_CUSTOMER"
Subquery Scan on "V_FBNK_CUSTOMER" (cost=0.00..19014.60 rows=180 width=7)
(actual time=455.727..76837.097 rows=180 loops=1)
Buffers: shared hit=204
-> Seq Scan on "FBNK_CUSTOMER" a (cost=0.00..19012.80 rows=180 width=14575)
(actual time=455.726..76836.791 rows=180 loops=1)
Buffers: shared hit=204
Planning Time: 1.109 ms
Execution Time: 76838.505 ms
Explain on view with a column:
EXPLAIN (analyze,BUFFERS)
SELECT RECID FROM "V_FBNK_CUSTOMER" WHERE "TESTER" = '5.00' ORDER BY RECID
Sort (cost=19015.06..19015.06 rows=1 width=7) (actual
time=76033.475..76033.475 rows=1 loops=1)
Sort Key: "V_FBNK_CUSTOMER".recid
Sort Method: quicksort Memory: 25kB
Buffers: shared hit=21
-> Subquery Scan on "V_FBNK_CUSTOMER" (cost=0.00..19015.05 rows=1 width=7)
(actual time=66521.952..76033.434 rows=1 loops=1)
Filter: (("V_FBNK_CUSTOMER"."TESTER")::text = '5.00'::text)
Rows Removed by Filter: 179
Buffers: shared hit=21
-> Seq Scan on "FBNK_CUSTOMER" a (cost=0.00..19012.80 rows=180
width=14575) (actual time=462.949..76033.096 rows=180 loops=1)
Buffers: shared hit=21
Planning Time: 0.819 ms
Execution Time: 76033.731 ms
But on the underlying table and not the view but just using the one view column
called TESTER:
EXPLAIN (analyze,BUFFERS)
SELECT RECID FROM "FBNK_CUSTOMER" WHERE extractValueJS(XMLRECORD, 179, 9) =
'5.00' ORDER BY RECID
Sort (cost=68.26..68.27 rows=1 width=7) (actual time=220.403..220.404 rows=1
loops=1)
Sort Key: recid
Sort Method: quicksort Memory: 25kB
Buffers: shared hit=21
-> Seq Scan on "FBNK_CUSTOMER" (cost=0.00..68.25 rows=1 width=7) (actual
time=193.000..220.397 rows=1 loops=1)
Filter: ((extractvaluejs((xmlrecord)::text, 179, 9))::text =
'5.00'::text)
Rows Removed by Filter: 179
Buffers: shared hit=21
Planning Time: 0.045 ms
Execution Time: 220.418 ms
Other info:
SELECT relname, relpages, reltuples, relallvisible, relkind, relnatts,
relhassubclass, reloptions, pg_table_size(oid) FROM pg_class WHERE
relname='FBNK_CURRENCY';
relname relpagesreltuples relallvisible relkind relnatts
relhassubclass reloptions pg_table_size
FBNK_CURRENCY 6 93 0 r 2 false NULL81920
Version is:
PostgreSQL 11.7 (Debian 11.7-2.pgdg90+1) on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, compiled by
gcc (Debian 6.3.0-18+deb9u1) 6.3.0 20170516, 64-bit
It is a postgres docker image.
Thanks,
Rick
-Original Message-
From: Tom Lane
Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2020 7:09 AM
To: Justin Pryzby
Cc: Rick Vincent ; [email protected];
Manoj Kumar ; Herve Aubert
Subject: Re: Postgres not using index on views
Justin Pryzby mailto:[email protected]>> writes:
> On Mon, Apr 06, 2020 at 02:19:59PM +, Rick Vincent wrote:
>> The following query takes an extremely long time for only 180 rows, and what
>> this means is that we would have to index anything appearing in the where
>> clause for every table in order to use views because the views seem not to
>> consider the select clause. Why is that and does anyone know a way around
>> this?
> Is there a reason why you don't store the extracted value in its own column ?
The planner seems to be quite well aware that the slower query is going to be
slower, since the estimated costs are much higher. Since it's not choosing to
optimize into a faster form, I wonder whether it's constrained by semantic
requirements. In particular, I'm suspicious that some of those functions you
have in the view are marked "volatile", preventing them from being optimized
away.
Beyond that guess, though, there's really not enough info here to say.
The info we usually ask for to debug slow-query problems is explained at
https://wiki.postgr
RE: Postgres not using index on views
Hi, I was wondering if anyone can explain the below problem. Should a bug be logged for this? Kind regards, Rick _ From: Rick Vincent Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2020 11:08 AM To: 'Tom Lane' ; Justin Pryzby Cc: [email protected]; Manoj Kumar ; Herve Aubert Subject: RE: Postgres not using index on views Hi Tom, The function is defined as below, so no use of VOLATILE. Let me know if you need any other information. I am hoping the below will further clarify the issue. CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION extractValueJS (sVar text, nfm INTEGER, nvm INTEGER) RETURNS VARCHAR as $$ declare sRet text := ''; nSize int := 0; retVal int := 0; cVar text[] := regexp_split_to_array(sVar,''); idx int := 1; nStart int := 0; nEnd int := 0; begin etc... return sRet; end; $$ LANGUAGE plpgsql; After reading you link. Here is a better explain plan: Explain on the table: EXPLAIN (analyze,BUFFERS) select RECID from "FBNK_CUSTOMER" Seq Scan on "FBNK_CUSTOMER" (cost=0.00..22.80 rows=180 width=7) (actual time=0.011..0.073 rows=180 loops=1) Buffers: shared hit=21 Planning Time: 0.056 ms Execution Time: 0.091 ms Explain on the view: EXPLAIN (analyze,BUFFERS) select RECID from "V_FBNK_CUSTOMER" Subquery Scan on "V_FBNK_CUSTOMER" (cost=0.00..19014.60 rows=180 width=7) (actual time=455.727..76837.097 rows=180 loops=1) Buffers: shared hit=204 -> Seq Scan on "FBNK_CUSTOMER" a (cost=0.00..19012.80 rows=180 width=14575) (actual time=455.726..76836.791 rows=180 loops=1) Buffers: shared hit=204 Planning Time: 1.109 ms Execution Time: 76838.505 ms Explain on view with a column: EXPLAIN (analyze,BUFFERS) SELECT RECID FROM "V_FBNK_CUSTOMER" WHERE "TESTER" = '5.00' ORDER BY RECID Sort (cost=19015.06..19015.06 rows=1 width=7) (actual time=76033.475..76033.475 rows=1 loops=1) Sort Key: "V_FBNK_CUSTOMER".recid Sort Method: quicksort Memory: 25kB Buffers: shared hit=21 -> Subquery Scan on "V_FBNK_CUSTOMER" (cost=0.00..19015.05 rows=1 width=7) (actual time=66521.952..76033.434 rows=1 loops=1) Filter: (("V_FBNK_CUSTOMER"."TESTER")::text = '5.00'::text) Rows Removed by Filter: 179 Buffers: shared hit=21 -> Seq Scan on "FBNK_CUSTOMER" a (cost=0.00..19012.80 rows=180 width=14575) (actual time=462.949..76033.096 rows=180 loops=1) Buffers: shared hit=21 Planning Time: 0.819 ms Execution Time: 76033.731 ms But on the underlying table and not the view but just using the one view column called TESTER: EXPLAIN (analyze,BUFFERS) SELECT RECID FROM "FBNK_CUSTOMER" WHERE extractValueJS(XMLRECORD, 179, 9) = '5.00' ORDER BY RECID Sort (cost=68.26..68.27 rows=1 width=7) (actual time=220.403..220.404 rows=1 loops=1) Sort Key: recid Sort Method: quicksort Memory: 25kB Buffers: shared hit=21 -> Seq Scan on "FBNK_CUSTOMER" (cost=0.00..68.25 rows=1 width=7) (actual time=193.000..220.397 rows=1 loops=1) Filter: ((extractvaluejs((xmlrecord)::text, 179, 9))::text = '5.00'::text) Rows Removed by Filter: 179 Buffers: shared hit=21 Planning Time: 0.045 ms Execution Time: 220.418 ms Other info: SELECT relname, relpages, reltuples, relallvisible, relkind, relnatts, relhassubclass, reloptions, pg_table_size(oid) FROM pg_class WHERE relname='FBNK_CURRENCY'; relname relpagesreltuples relallvisible relkind relnatts relhassubclass reloptions pg_table_size FBNK_CURRENCY 6 93 0 r 2 false NULL81920 Version is: PostgreSQL 11.7 (Debian 11.7-2.pgdg90+1) on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, compiled by gcc (Debian 6.3.0-18+deb9u1) 6.3.0 20170516, 64-bit It is a postgres docker image. Thanks, Rick -Original Message- From: Tom Lane mailto:[email protected]>> Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2020 7:09 AM To: Justin Pryzby mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: Rick Vincent mailto:[email protected]>>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; Manoj Kumar mailto:[email protected]>>; Herve Aubert mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: Postgres not using index on views Justin Pryzby mailto:[email protected]>> writes: > On Mon, Apr 06, 2020 at 02:19:59PM +, Rick Vincent wrote: >> The following query takes an extremely long time for only 180 rows, and what >> this means is that we would have to index anything appearing in the where >> clause for every table in order to use views because the views seem not to >> consider the select clause. Why is that and does anyone know a way around >> this? > Is there a reason why you don't store the extracted value in i
RE: Postgres not using index on views
Hi David, Oh, okay…I missed that implied part. Will try it and post back. Thanks, Rick From: David G. Johnston Sent: Friday, April 17, 2020 4:55 PM To: Rick Vincent Cc: Tom Lane ; Justin Pryzby ; [email protected]; Manoj Kumar ; Herve Aubert Subject: Postgres not using index on views On Friday, April 17, 2020, Rick Vincent mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi, I was wondering if anyone can explain the below problem. Should a bug be logged for this? Kind regards, Rick _ From: Rick Vincent Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2020 11:08 AM To: 'Tom Lane' mailto:[email protected]>>; Justin Pryzby mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; Manoj Kumar mailto:[email protected]>>; Herve Aubert mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: RE: Postgres not using index on views Hi Tom, The function is defined as below, so no use of VOLATILE. Let me know if you need any other information. I am hoping the below will further clarify the issue. IIUC as Tom wrote you have volatile functions (implied/default as Thomas wrote) attached to view column outputs and the planner will not optimize those away. Mark your function immutable (assuming it is) and retry your experiment with the where clause query. David J. The information in this e-mail and any attachments is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee or addressees. Any use or disclosure of the contents of this e-mail/attachments by a not intended recipient is unauthorized and may be unlawful. If you have received this e-mail in error please notify the sender. Please note that any views or opinions presented in this e-mail are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of TEMENOS. We recommend that you check this e-mail and any attachments against viruses. TEMENOS accepts no liability for any damage caused by any malicious code or virus transmitted by this e-mail.
RE: Postgres not using index on views
Dear all, Changing the function signature to IMMUTABLE worked like a dream. No issue now. Sorry for my confusion on VOLATILE being created as the default. Thanks to everyone for your help! Kind regards, Rick Vincent From: David G. Johnston Sent: Friday, April 17, 2020 4:55 PM To: Rick Vincent Cc: Tom Lane ; Justin Pryzby ; [email protected]; Manoj Kumar ; Herve Aubert Subject: Postgres not using index on views On Friday, April 17, 2020, Rick Vincent mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi, I was wondering if anyone can explain the below problem. Should a bug be logged for this? Kind regards, Rick _ From: Rick Vincent Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2020 11:08 AM To: 'Tom Lane' mailto:[email protected]>>; Justin Pryzby mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; Manoj Kumar mailto:[email protected]>>; Herve Aubert mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: RE: Postgres not using index on views Hi Tom, The function is defined as below, so no use of VOLATILE. Let me know if you need any other information. I am hoping the below will further clarify the issue. IIUC as Tom wrote you have volatile functions (implied/default as Thomas wrote) attached to view column outputs and the planner will not optimize those away. Mark your function immutable (assuming it is) and retry your experiment with the where clause query. David J. The information in this e-mail and any attachments is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee or addressees. Any use or disclosure of the contents of this e-mail/attachments by a not intended recipient is unauthorized and may be unlawful. If you have received this e-mail in error please notify the sender. Please note that any views or opinions presented in this e-mail are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of TEMENOS. We recommend that you check this e-mail and any attachments against viruses. TEMENOS accepts no liability for any damage caused by any malicious code or virus transmitted by this e-mail.
