Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Adding "LIMIT 1" kills performance.

From: Chris Shoemaker <chris(dot)shoemaker(at)cox(dot)net>
To: Shane Ambler <pgsql(at)Sheeky(dot)Biz>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org, ejones(at)engineyard(dot)com
Subject: Re: Adding "LIMIT 1" kills performance.
Date: 2008-05-29 17:47:12
Message-ID: 20080529174712.GB18895@pe.Belkin (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 02:23:46AM +0930, Shane Ambler wrote:
> Chris Shoemaker wrote:
>> [Attn list-queue maintainers: Please drop the earlier version
>> of this email that I accidentally sent from an unsubscribed address. ]
>>
>> Hi, 
>> I'm having a strange problem with a slow-running select query.  The
>> query I use in production ends in "LIMIT 1", and it runs very slowly.
>> But when I remove the "LIMIT 1", the query runs quite quickly.  This
>> behavior has stumped a couple smart DBAs.
>>
>
>> Can anyone explain why such a slow plan is chosen when the "LIMIT 1"
>> is present?  Is there anything I can do to speed this query up?
>> Thanks.
>>
>
> From what I know using an ORDER BY and a LIMIT can often prevent 
> *shortening* the query as it still needs to find all rows to perform the 
> order by before it limits.

That makes complete sense, of course.

> The difference in plans eludes me.
>
>> production=> EXPLAIN ANALYZE SELECT event_updates.*
>>              FROM event_updates
>>              INNER JOIN calendars ON event_updates.feed_id = calendars.id
>>              INNER JOIN calendar_links ON calendars.id = calendar_links.source_tracker_id
>>              WHERE (calendar_links.calendar_group_id = 3640)
>>              ORDER BY event_updates.id DESC
>>              LIMIT 1;
>
> Does removing the DESC from the order by give the same variation in plans? 
> Or is this only when using ORDER BY ... DESC LIMIT 1?

Except for using Index Scan instead of Index Scan Backward, the plan
is the same with ORDER BY ... or ORDER BY ... ASC as with ORDER BY
... DESC.  In case you're wondering what would happen without the
ORDER BY at all:

production=> EXPLAIN SELECT event_updates.*
FROM event_updates
INNER JOIN calendars ON event_updates.feed_id = calendars.id
INNER JOIN calendar_links ON calendars.id = calendar_links.source_tracker_id
WHERE (calendar_links.calendar_group_id = 3640)
LIMIT 1;                 
                                                                       QUERY PLAN                                                                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Limit  (cost=0.00..3.95 rows=1 width=2752)
   ->  Nested Loop  (cost=0.00..36992.38 rows=9362 width=2752)
         ->  Nested Loop  (cost=0.00..16.55 rows=1 width=8)
               ->  Index Scan using index_calendar_links_on_calendar_group_id_and_source_tracker_id on calendar_links  (cost=0.00..8.27 rows=1 width=4)
                     Index Cond: (calendar_group_id = 3640)
               ->  Index Scan using harvest_trackers_pkey on calendars  (cost=0.00..8.27 rows=1 width=4)
                     Index Cond: (calendars.id = calendar_links.source_tracker_id)
         ->  Index Scan using index_event_updates_on_feed_id_and_feed_type on event_updates  (cost=0.00..36858.50 rows=9386 width=2752)
               Index Cond: (event_updates.feed_id = calendars.id)
(9 rows)


>
>
> One thing that interests me is try -
>
> EXPLAIN ANALYZE SELECT * FROM (
>
> SELECT event_updates.*
> FROM event_updates
> INNER JOIN calendars ON event_updates.feed_id = calendars.id
> INNER JOIN calendar_links ON calendars.id = calendar_links.source_tracker_id
> WHERE (calendar_links.calendar_group_id = 3640)
> ORDER BY event_updates.id DESC
> ) AS foo
>
> LIMIT 1;

That's an interesting experiment.  Here are the results:

               QUERY PLAN                                                                                               
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Limit  (cost=16.55..91.74 rows=1 width=6027) (actual time=490709.355..490709.357 rows=1 loops=1)
   ->  Nested Loop  (cost=16.55..703794.95 rows=9361 width=2752) (actual time=490709.352..490709.352 rows=1 loops=1)
         Join Filter: (event_updates.feed_id = calendars.id)
         ->  Index Scan Backward using event_updates_pkey on event_updates  (cost=0.00..500211.53 rows=9047416 width=2752) (actual time=0.222..469082.071 rows=5251179 loops=1)
         ->  Materialize  (cost=16.55..16.56 rows=1 width=8) (actual time=0.001..0.002 rows=1 loops=5251179)
               ->  Nested Loop  (cost=0.00..16.55 rows=1 width=8) (actual time=0.240..0.246 rows=1 loops=1)
                     ->  Index Scan using index_calendar_links_on_calendar_group_id_and_source_tracker_id on calendar_links  (cost=0.00..8.27 rows=1 width=4) (actual time=0.108..0.109 rows=1 loops=1)
                           Index Cond: (calendar_group_id = 3640)
                     ->  Index Scan using harvest_trackers_pkey on calendars  (cost=0.00..8.27 rows=1 width=4) (actual time=0.127..0.129 rows=1 loops=1)
                           Index Cond: (calendars.id = calendar_links.source_tracker_id)
 Total runtime: 490709.576 ms
(11 rows)


That is, no real change in the performance.

Still stumped,
-chris

In response to

Responses

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2008-05-29 17:59:11
Subject: Re: Adding "LIMIT 1" kills performance.
Previous:From: Shane AmblerDate: 2008-05-29 16:53:46
Subject: Re: Adding "LIMIT 1" kills performance.

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group