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

un-understood index performance behaviour

From: "Emiliano Leporati" <emiliano(dot)leporati(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: un-understood index performance behaviour
Date: 2008-07-01 10:49:19
Message-ID: c5f2bc170807010349o6d252e3cwcacb6e9c898235c8@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
Hi,
i have a table with a huge amount of rows (actually 4 millions and a half),
defined like this:

CREATE TABLE rtp_frame (
    i_len integer NOT NULL,
    i_file_offset bigint NOT NULL,
    i_file_id integer NOT NULL,  -- foreign key
    i_timestamp bigint NOT NULL,
    i_loop integer NOT NULL,
    i_medium_id integer NOT NULL, -- foreign key
    PRIMARY KEY(i_medium_id, i_loop, i_timestamp)
);

The primary key creates the btree index.

If I ask the database something like this:

SELECT ((max(i_timestamp) - min(i_timestamp))::double precision / <rate>)
FROM rtp_frame
WHERE i_medium_id = <medium> AND i_loop = <loop>;

it replies istantaneously.

But if i ask

DECLARE blablabla INSENSITIVE NO SCROLL CURSOR WITHOUT HOLD FOR
SELECT i_file_id, i_len, i_file_offset, i_timestamp
FROM rtp_frame WHERE i_medium_id = <medium>
AND i_loop = <loop>
AND i_timestamp BETWEEN 0 and 5400000
ORDER BY i_timestamp

on a medium with, say, 4 millions rows co-related, it takes 15 seconds to
reply, even with a different clause on i_timestamp (say i_timestamp >= 0),
even with the ORDER BY clause specified on the three indexed columns (ORDER
BY i_medium_id, i_loop, i_timestamp).

Issued on a medium with "just" some hundred thousand rows, it runs
instantaneously.

If I add a single btree index on i_timestamp, it runs instantaneously event
on a medium with millions rows (so having a btree(i_medium_id, i_loop,
i_timestamp) and btree(i_timestamp)).

With (btree(i_medium_id, i_loop) and btree(i_timestamp)), the first for sure
takes 15 seconds to run, the second i think too but not sure atm.

can anybody explain me why this happens ? and if i should try different
indexes ?

thanks a lot

Emiliano

Responses

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Kathirvel, JeevanandamDate: 2008-07-01 11:59:13
Subject: Inact_dirty is increasing continuously and causing the system to hang.
Previous:From: John BeaverDate: 2008-07-01 00:37:58
Subject: Re: sequence scan problem

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