Here's my setup (Postgres 9.3)


  • project_id


  • post_id
  • kind
  • updated_at

I'm trying to get the most recently updated 100 messages that belong to posts (on a specific project) that are a specific kind. My query looks like:

SELECT "messages".* FROM "messages" 
INNER JOIN "posts" ON "posts"."id" = "messages"."post_id" 
WHERE "posts"."project_id" = '418fdd03-ab90-4efd-b04d-5d5563d58972' AND "messages"."kind" IN (10, 11, 12) 
ORDER BY updated_at DESC LIMIT 100 OFFSET 0;

Limit  (cost=0.17..2372.06 rows=100 width=648) (actual time=17.731..308.603 rows=100 loops=1)
 ->  Nested Loop  (cost=0.17..44164.77 rows=1862 width=648) (actual time=17.730..308.559 rows=100 loops=1)
       ->  Index Scan Backward using index_messages_on_updated_at on messages  (cost=0.08..20924.10 rows=151337 width=648) (actual time=0.034..93.817 rows=83481 loops=1)
             Filter: (kind = ANY ('{10,11,12}'::integer[]))
             Rows Removed by Filter: 130238
       ->  Index Scan using posts_pkey on posts  (cost=0.08..0.15 rows=1 width=16) (actual time=0.002..0.002 rows=0 loops=83481)
             Index Cond: (id = messages.post_id)
             Filter: (project_id = '418fdd03-ab90-4efd-b04d-5d5563d58972'::uuid)
             Rows Removed by Filter: 1
Total runtime: 308.660 ms

If I run without the kind clause:

SELECT "messages".* FROM "messages" 
INNER JOIN "posts" ON "posts"."id" = "messages"."post_id" 
WHERE "posts"."project_id" = '418fdd03-ab90-4efd-b04d-5d5563d58972' 
ORDER BY updated_at DESC LIMIT 100 OFFSET 0;

Limit  (cost=0.17..1320.02 rows=100 width=648) (actual time=0.501..23.613 rows=100 loops=1)
 ->  Nested Loop  (cost=0.17..69371.34 rows=5256 width=648) (actual time=0.500..23.583 rows=100 loops=1)
       ->  Index Scan Backward using index_messages_on_updated_at on messages  (cost=0.08..20603.62 rows=427305 width=648) (actual time=0.010..3.256 rows=7893 loops=1)
       ->  Index Scan using posts_pkey on posts  (cost=0.08..0.11 rows=1 width=16) (actual time=0.002..0.002 rows=0 loops=7893)
             Index Cond: (id = messages.post_id)
             Filter: (project_id = '418fdd03-ab90-4efd-b04d-5d5563d58972'::uuid)
             Rows Removed by Filter: 1
Total runtime: 23.667 ms

I think the main slowdown is that the majority of the rows are not of the kind I'm looking for. I tried adding a partial index on kind, but that didn't have any effect.

CREATE INDEX index_messages_on_kind ON messages USING btree (kind) WHERE (kind = ANY (ARRAY[10, 11, 12]));

Any ideas to speed this query up?


Indexes that currently exist:


  • index on project_id and updated_at


  • indexes on post_id, updated_at and partial index on kind IN (10, 11, 12)
  • You need to provide us with what indexes are already defined on the tables "messages" and "posts" .. I will provide a suggestion as an answer though. – Joishi Bodio Jan 20 '15 at 20:58
  • 1
    The "setup" and SQL are inconsistent. Can you fix, please. – Michael Green Jan 21 '15 at 12:33

@Joishi already provided an explanation for what you saw.

Here is a solution to make it fast.

Your query (unchanged) after trimming some noise:

FROM   posts    p
JOIN   messages m ON m.post_id = p.id
WHERE  p.project_id = '418fdd03-ab90-4efd-b04d-5d5563d58972'
AND    m.kind = ANY ('{10,11,12}')
ORDER  BY m.updated_at DESC
LIMIT  100

1. Multicolumn index on posts

This is only a minor improvement and not strictly necessary. Should give you an Index Only Scan instead of an Index Scan. Saves the lookup on the heap (the table)

 CREATE UNIQUE INDEX index_posts ON posts (project_id, id);

UNIQUE is also not necessary, but it better documents that the index is, in fact, unique.

2. Partial multicolumn index on messages done right

This is the major part.

  • Use the same predicate in the partial index and in the query. Postgres only applies very rudimentary tests to determine whether an partial index is applicable. Else, the cost would get out of hand quickly.
    Since kind IN (10, 11, 12) is rewritten to kind = ANY ('{10,11,12}'::integer[]) internally, it should still work in this case, but it's better to be clear.

  • It would be useless to make kind the indexed column here. It's only relevant in the predicate, not as column to retrieve from the index. You need an equality check on post_id (so it comes first) and a range check on updated_at (so it comes after that). Details:

    DESC is not strictly necessary, but still better here.

-- DROP INDEX index_messages_on_kind;
CREATE INDEX index_messages_on_kind ON messages (post_id, updated_at DESC)
WHERE kind = ANY ('{10,11,12}');

Then run ANALYZE on both tables and try EXPLAIN ANALYZE again. Are we fast, yet?

  • It worked! Thanks so much for such an in depth explanation! I think I was fundamentally not understanding how to properly use a partial index. – skalb Jan 21 '15 at 19:28
  • @skalb: Could you post an updated output from EXPLAIN ANALYZE? I would be interested in the result. (Maybe post another answer to show the result.) – Erwin Brandstetter Jan 21 '15 at 19:33
  • Sure, I've only tested the change locally at the moment, but once it's in production (where the original EXPLAINs were run), I'll post it to make sure there's no env discrepancies. – skalb Jan 21 '15 at 19:44

TL;DR - Try removing the LIMIT and see which one performs better.

Based off what you have pasted ... It appears that, because you are using a LIMIT on each .. the second query will run faster because it only has to apply one filter (project_id = '') while the second has to apply two filters (project_id = '' and kind = '').

As a result of using limit, it takes less TIME to just spit out the first 100 results where the kind doesn't matter .... it takes more TIME to spit out 100 results where the kind DOES matter..

If you remove the LIMIT, I'm sure you'll see that, ignoring time for the query to run, the query with two filters will most likely return less rows (which, I'm guessing, will cause it to take less time overall ... but that really depends on what indexes exist. Based off of your pasted explains, though, it looks like you have appropriate indexes).

If you remove the LIMIT, I -believe- you'll still see two index scans for the two-filter query .. but one index scan and one sequential scan on the query with only one filter.

  • Thanks for the answer! You're right removing the limit greatly improves the performance. The issue is that this query is part of a paged result, so in the case there are more than 100 the next query will be LIMIT 100 OFFSET 100 if that makes sense. It seems weird that doing the limit application side would be faster. – skalb Jan 20 '15 at 22:53
  • What you say does make sense (in terms of the offset) .. however, how could you have a "proper" paged result if the application didn't get all results up front - how would it know how many pages exist? At least a COUNT up front.. Anyway - glad I could help. :) – Joishi Bodio Jan 20 '15 at 23:44
  • In this particular case it's an infinite scroll behavior, so the total pages actually doesn't matter! – skalb Jan 21 '15 at 2:59

For anyone curious, here is the updated query plan incorporating the changes suggested by Erwin

   Limit  (cost=131.47..131.48 rows=15 width=648) (actual time=2.816..2.880 rows=100 loops=1)
     ->  Sort  (cost=131.47..131.48 rows=15 width=648) (actual time=2.815..2.835 rows=100 loops=1)
           Sort Key: messages.updated_at
           Sort Method: quicksort  Memory: 99kB
           ->  Nested Loop  (cost=2.17..131.41 rows=15 width=648) (actual time=0.122..2.591 rows=144 loops=1)
                 ->  Index Scan using index_posts_on_project_id on posts  (cost=0.08..34.14 rows=16 width=16) (actual time=0.050..0.083 rows=35 loops=1)
                       Index Cond: (project_id = '418fdd03-ab90-4efd-b04d-5d5563d58972'::uuid)
                 ->  Bitmap Heap Scan on messages  (cost=2.09..6.07 rows=2 width=648) (actual time=0.063..0.067 rows=4 loops=35)
                       Recheck Cond: ((post_id = posts.id) AND (kind = ANY ('{10,11,12}'::integer[])))
                       ->  Bitmap Index Scan on index_messages_on_post_id_and_updated_at  (cost=0.00..2.09 rows=2 width=0) (actual time=0.061..0.061 rows=4 loops=35)
                             Index Cond: (post_id = posts.id)
   Total runtime: 2.980 ms

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.