I have a table defined like
CREATE TABLE details_search (
id int4 NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY,
"search" tsvector NULL
);
CREATE INDEX details_search_idx ON details_search USING gin (search);
I ran this to get an idea of its size:
SELECT pg_size_pretty(pg_relation_size('details_search')) relation_size,
pg_size_pretty(pg_total_relation_size('details_search')) total_relation_size,
pg_size_pretty(pg_table_size('details_search')) table_size,
pg_size_pretty(pg_indexes_size('details_search')) indexes_size;
and these are the results
relation_size|total_relation_size|table_size|indexes_size|
-------------+-------------------+----------+------------+
800 MB |64 GB |57 GB |6830 MB |
I'm interested in only performing phrase searches, and these are used aggregated. When I perform phrase searches with uncommon terms, things work fine. Now when I use a phrase that has a common term, performance suffers a lot.
This query took 192s:
SELECT COUNT(id)
FROM details_search
WHERE search @@ phraseto_tsquery('simple', 'data management')
Here's the query plan (and here the query plan in a nice interface):
Output: count(id)
Buffers: shared hit=25942383 read=6354221 written=4588
I/O Timings: shared/local read=512605.708 write=122.864
-> Gather (cost=178176.43..178176.64 rows=2 width=8) (actual time=192857.512..192861.652 rows=3 loops=1)
Output: (PARTIAL count(id))
Workers Planned: 2
Workers Launched: 2
Buffers: shared hit=25942383 read=6354221 written=4588
I/O Timings: shared/local read=512605.708 write=122.864
-> Partial Aggregate (cost=177176.43..177176.44 rows=1 width=8) (actual time=192852.434..192852.435 rows=1 loops=3)
Output: PARTIAL count(id)
Buffers: shared hit=25942383 read=6354221 written=4588
I/O Timings: shared/local read=512605.708 write=122.864
Worker 0: actual time=192851.530..192851.531 rows=1 loops=1
Buffers: shared hit=8650807 read=2115877 written=1469
I/O Timings: shared/local read=170775.853 write=38.985
Worker 1: actual time=192848.579..192848.581 rows=1 loops=1
Buffers: shared hit=8623424 read=2115864 written=1551
I/O Timings: shared/local read=170720.335 write=41.527
-> Parallel Bitmap Heap Scan on details_search (cost=33664.19..173376.94 rows=1519795 width=4) (actual time=1231.216..192758.374 rows=121050 loops=3)
Output: id, search
Recheck Cond: (search @@ '''data'' <-> ''management'''::tsquery)
Rows Removed by Index Recheck: 2268868
Heap Blocks: exact=12114 lossy=22061
Buffers: shared hit=25942383 read=6354221 written=4588
I/O Timings: shared/local read=512605.708 write=122.864
Worker 0: actual time=1230.572..192759.521 rows=121482 loops=1
Buffers: shared hit=8650807 read=2115877 written=1469
I/O Timings: shared/local read=170775.853 write=38.985
Worker 1: actual time=1227.317..192754.854 rows=120483 loops=1
Buffers: shared hit=8623424 read=2115864 written=1551
I/O Timings: shared/local read=170720.335 write=41.527
-> Bitmap Index Scan on job_posts_details_search_idx (cost=0.00..32752.32 rows=3647509 width=0) (actual time=1226.674..1226.675 rows=3956386 loops=1)
Index Cond: (search @@ '''data'' <-> ''management'''::tsquery)
Buffers: shared hit=832 read=2242
I/O Timings: shared/local read=424.365
Settings: effective_cache_size = '13153520kB', search_path = 'public, public, "$user"'
Query Identifier: 1461135140272243366
Planning:
Buffers: shared hit=194
Planning Time: 7.346 ms
Execution Time: 192861.763 ms
Most of the time went to reading on the parallel bitmap heap scan. It was also a fairly slow read, at 97 MB/s considering it has SSDs (and have an SSD exclusively for data caching). This is not improved if I use pg_prewarm
to load the table before the query.
I see it has Recheck Cond: (search @@ '''data'' <-> ''management'''::tsquery)
, so I guess it's pulling all the job data from disk to check the condition on the actual search
column, as if just checking the index wasn't enough to validate if there's a phrase match. That would explain why this issue only occurs on common terms.
What could I do to optimize for these phrase searches? I'd be happy to consider limitations of possible things to search for (like "only do queries up to 3 words") or server setting changes (to speed up those pesky reads) if that can bring consistency to the query time.