2

I have an analytics database on Postgres 9.5 I'm taking advantage of constraint partitioning with table inheritance to split up events into monthly tables. The base (parent) table contains no rows.

I have a relatively simple query but the planner is coming up with a completely insane plan where it materializes within a nested loop as can be seen from the explain.

The query

select count(person_id) as thecount from (
    select distinct A.person_id from event_page as O 
    join alias as A on (O.person_alias = A.alias) 
    where O.timestamp_ between '2017-4-28 04:00:00' and '2017-4-29 03:59:59.999' 
    and O.location_host = 'www.foo.com' AND O.location_path= '/ca/sale' 
) as alias_3494697

The explain: https://explain.depesz.com/s/IoO

My theory is that table inheritance with constraint partitioning is tripping up the planner somehow. If I replace the base table with the monthly table for April I get a sane plan with good performance:

https://explain.depesz.com/s/GpbU

NOTE The slight difference from the above query - i'm using the child table instead of the base table (ie no inheritance at play)

select count(person_id) as thecount from (
    select distinct A.person_id from event_page_2017_4 as O 
    join alias as A on (O.person_alias = A.alias) 
    where O.timestamp_ between '2017-4-28 04:00:00' and '2017-4-29 03:59:59.999' 
    and O.location_host = 'www.foo.com' AND O.location_path= '/ca/sale' 
) as alias_3494697

All stats are up to date via vacuum analyze. The relevant schema is below:

CREATE TABLE event_page (
    id                      CHAR(24) PRIMARY KEY,
    timestamp_              TIMESTAMP NOT NULL,
    person_alias            VARCHAR(128) NOT NULL,
    visitor_id              VARCHAR(128) NOT NULL,
    session_id              VARCHAR(24) NOT NULL,
    ip_address              VARCHAR(64) ,
    user_agent              VARCHAR(256) ,
    operating_system        VARCHAR(64) ,
    device_type             VARCHAR(64) ,
    browser                 VARCHAR(64) ,
    browser_major           VARCHAR(64) ,
    page_title              VARCHAR(1024) ,
    location_host           VARCHAR(256) ,
    location_path           VARCHAR(1024) ,
    location_query          VARCHAR(1024) ,
    location_fragment       VARCHAR(1024) ,
    referrer_host           VARCHAR(256) ,
    referrer_path           VARCHAR(1024) ,
    referrer_query          VARCHAR(1024) ,
    referrer_fragment       VARCHAR(1024) ,
        duration                INT
);



--the monthly tables all look like this example for April 2017
CREATE TABLE event_page_2017_4
(LIKE event_page including defaults including constraints including indexes,
CONSTRAINT page_2017_4_part CHECK ( timestamp_ >= '2017-4-01'::timestamp AND timestamp_ < '2017-05-01'::timestamp )
)
INHERITS (event_page);


--indexes are the sames on each of the monthly tables
CREATE INDEX ep_2017_4_location
  ON event_page_2017_4
  USING btree
  (location_host varchar_pattern_ops, location_path varchar_pattern_ops, location_query varchar_pattern_ops, location_fragment varchar_pattern_ops, timestamp_, person_alias, session_id);

CREATE INDEX ep_2017_4_ts
  ON event_page_2017_4
  USING btree
  (timestamp_, person_alias, session_id);

CREATE INDEX ep_2017_4_a_ses_ts 
  ON event_page_2017_4
  USING btree
  (person_alias, session_id, timestamp_); 


--the alias tables and two indexes
CREATE TABLE alias (
    person_id               CHAR(24),
    alias                   VARCHAR(128) NOT NULL,
    first_seen              TIMESTAMP,
    soft                    BOOLEAN
);

ALTER TABLE ALIAS ADD CONSTRAINT alias_alias_pkey PRIMARY KEY(alias);
CREATE INDEX alias_a_p ON alias (alias, person_id);
CREATE INDEX alias_p_a ON alias (person_id, alias);

NOTE: The problem went away after upgrading to 9.6.1

3

A couple of observations:

1.

The query plan for the slow query shows:

Seq Scan on event_page o (cost=10,000,000,000.00..10,000,000,000.00 rows=1 width=274)

... which indicates that you ran with SET enable_seqscan = off;. And that means your Postgres version positively could not find any other way than the sequential scan.

2.

Did you enable constraint_exclusion like the manual advises here:

  1. Ensure that the constraint_exclusion configuration parameter is not disabled in postgresql.conf. If it is, queries will not be optimized as desired.

3.

The day boundaries in your query are not in sync with the partitioning. (But that has no immediate effect for the given query, see comments.)
The CHECK constraint reads:

CHECK ( timestamp_ >= '2017-4-01'::timestamp AND timestamp_ < '2017-05-01'::timestamp )

There may be confusion with timestamp vs. timestamptz and / or time zones. Or something got lost in translation and the question is misleading in that respect.

Either way, the expression in your WHERE clause opens up a sneaky corner case (even if your day boundaries were in sync):

where O.timestamp_ between '2017-4-28 04:00:00' and '2017-4-29 03:59:59.999' 

Postgres timestamps are implemented as 8-byte integers allowing 6 decimal places. A row with '2017-4-29 03:59:59.9995' would not behave as expected. Details:

Plus, this does not play well with constraint exclusion. More partitions than necessary may have to be read.

Use instead:

WHERE o.timestamp_ >= '2017-4-28 04:00' -- include lower bound
AND   o.timestamp_ <  '2017-4-29 04:00' -- exclude upper bound

You may want get "days" in your partitions in sync with your queries - 00:00 vs. 04:00 (or the evil 03:59:59.999) - and maybe use timestamptz to begin with.

4.

I see for the index-only scan on alias:

Heap Fetches: 1918543

... which is exceptionally high. There may or may not be problems with the visibility map. (See also: Updating The Visibility Map) Did you run VACUUM FULL on the table(s)? (Compare this thread on plpgsql-performance.) Try plain VACUUM, which updates the visibility map properly. But that's all hard to say, since you seem to have been running with enable_seqscan = off. Not sure how this plays out in combination with all the other stuff at work here.

There have been various improvements to VACUUM for Postgres 9.6 (among other things), this may explain the difference - or what you observed in pg 9.6 is coincidence and due to other factors.

5.

If alias.alias is unique (and referential integrity can be assumed), the query can be simplified. Just count(DISTINCT o.person_alias) without even joining to table alias at all. Like:

SELECT count(DISTINCT o.person_alias) AS thecount
FROM   event_page o
WHERE  o.timestamp_ >= '2017-4-28 04:00' -- include lower bound
AND    o.timestamp_ <  '2017-4-29 04:00' -- exclude upper bound
AND    o.location_host = 'www.foo.com'
AND    o.location_path = '/ca/sale';

(Or use the subquery like you had it, may be faster than count(DISTINCT ...).)

If alias.alias is not unique, your query may be wrong / ambiguous.

Why do you have person_alias in table event_page and not person_id to begin with?

6.

You use the data type CHAR(24) as PK for your tables, which is almost certainly a bad choice. Consider a serial or bigserial column or maybe a uuid. Numeric types are smaller and faster and not burdened by collation rules, varying byte length, etc. Related:

  • In my first draft I misread and assumed you had daily partitions. Since you have 1 partition per month, the comparison is fair after all. I leave the rest discussing partition bounds, since that's still relevant. – Erwin Brandstetter May 1 '17 at 22:42
  • Thanks Erwin, to address your points: 1. Yes, enable_seqscan = off however the parent table is always empty, only the tables that inherit contain data. 2. Yes, constrain exclusion is set to partition, the default 3. You lost me here. The monthly partitions are set up to with inclusive & exclusive bounds and there should be no overlap. Isn't '2017-4-01' equivalent to '2017-4-01 00:00:00.000'? Based on my experiments the constraint partitions worked as expected. 4. VACUUM FULL (rewrite) did lower the heap fetches – maxTrialfire May 1 '17 at 22:43
  • continued.... 5. A person may have one or more aliases hence the join. A person's alias may change throughout their life. I'm interested in finding the distinct people which is always <= to the distinct aliases. 6. Will look into this, thanks for the tip – maxTrialfire May 1 '17 at 22:45
  • @maxTrialfire: 3. See my comment and updates, I had misread the date format. 4. VACUUM is superior to VACUUM FULL for updating the visibility map. 5. Makes sense now. (Did you ensure that aliases are unambiguous over time?) – Erwin Brandstetter May 1 '17 at 22:51
  • Edited the question to include PK constraint on alias which I seem to have left out. – maxTrialfire May 1 '17 at 23:58

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.