| From: | Ron Johnson <ronljohnsonjr(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | yudhi s <learnerdatabase99(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "pgsql-generallists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Top -N Query performance issue and high CPU usage |
| Date: | 2026-02-02 23:19:50 |
| Message-ID: | CANzqJaDxOsp=QNqa5bK4JXKOt7uHfxNpcTPZGWuVUMpGjNUB4Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Mon, Feb 2, 2026 at 3:43 PM yudhi s <learnerdatabase99(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 3, 2026 at 1:01 AM Ron Johnson <ronljohnsonjr(at)gmail(dot)com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Feb 2, 2026 at 1:39 PM yudhi s <learnerdatabase99(at)gmail(dot)com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Feb 2, 2026 at 8:57 PM Ron Johnson <ronljohnsonjr(at)gmail(dot)com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> My apologies if i misunderstand the plan, But If I see, it's
>>>>> spending ~140ms(140ms-6ms) i.e. almost all the time now, in performing the
>>>>> below nested loop join. So my question was , is there any possibility to
>>>>> reduce the resource consumption or response time further here? Hope my
>>>>> understanding is correct here.
>>>>>
>>>>> -> Nested Loop (cost=266.53..1548099.38 rows=411215 width=20) (actual
>>>>> time=*6.009..147.695* rows=1049 loops=1)
>>>>> Join Filter: ((df.ent_id)::numeric = m.ent_id)
>>>>> Rows Removed by Join Filter: 513436
>>>>> Buffers: shared hit=1939
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't see m.ent_id in the actual query. Did you only paste a
>>>> portion of the query?
>>>>
>>>> Also, casting in a JOIN typically brutalizes the ability to use an
>>>> index.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thank you.
>>> Actually i tried executing the first two CTE where the query was
>>> spending most of the time and teh alias has changed.
>>>
>>
>> We need to see everything, not just what you think is relevant.
>>
>>
>>> Also here i have changed the real table names before putting it here,
>>> hope that is fine.
>>> However , i verified the data type of the ent_id column in "ent" its
>>> "int8" and in table "txn_tbl" is "numeric 12", so do you mean to say this
>>> difference in the data type is causing this high response time during the
>>> nested loop join? My understanding was it will be internally castable
>>> without additional burden. Also, even i tried creating an index on the "(df.ent_id)::numeric"
>>> its still reulting into same plan and response time.
>>>
>>
>> If you'd shown the "\d" table definitions like Adrian asked two days ago,
>> we'd know what indexes are on each table, and not have to beg you to
>> dispense dribs and drabs of information.
>>
>>
> I am unable to run "\d" from the dbeaver sql worksheet. However, I have
> fetched the DDL for the three tables and their selected columns, used in
> the smaller version of the query and its plan , which I recently updated.
>
> https://gist.github.com/databasetech0073/e4290b085f8f974e315fb41bdc47a1f3
>
> https://gist.github.com/databasetech0073/344df46c328e02b98961fab0cd221492
>
Lines 30-32 are where most of the time and effort are taken.
I can't be certain, but changing APP_schema.ent.ent_id from NUMERIC to int8
(with a CHECK constraint to, well, constrain it to 12 digits, if really
necessary) is something I'd test.
--
Death to <Redacted>, and butter sauce.
Don't boil me, I'm still alive.
<Redacted> lobster!
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Previous Message | yudhi s | 2026-02-02 20:43:01 | Re: Top -N Query performance issue and high CPU usage |