PG 9.1 performance loss due to query plan being changed depending on db data (4s vs 200ms) - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas
Subject PG 9.1 performance loss due to query plan being changed depending on db data (4s vs 200ms)
Date
Msg-id 50D2171D.9010608@gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
List pgsql-performance
Trying again since I couldn't post without being subscribed. The message got stalled and was never sent, so I just subscribed and I'm trying again. Original message I tried to send two days ago:

----------------------------------

I've explained a bit of how my application works in this thread as well as the reasons why I couldn't use PG 9.2.1 due to performance issues and had to rollback to 9.1.

http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/Query-completed-in-lt-1s-in-PG-9-1-and-700s-in-PG-9-2-td5730899.html

Now I found that 9.2.2 was released while 9.1 is performing worse for the same db schema, but the data is now different.

So, here are the output of some explain analyze:

Old DB dump, PG 9.1: http://explain.depesz.com/s/mvf (0.2s)
New DB dump, PG 9.1: http://explain.depesz.com/s/vT2k (4.3s)
New DB dump, PG 9.2.2: http://explain.depesz.com/s/uu0 (0.04s)

I've already upgraded back to PG 9.2.2 but I thought you might be interested on backporting that improvement to 9.1 as well and I'm not even sure if the bug above was fixed intentionally or by chance so I'd like to be sure about that...

The query I used was:

SELECT t.id as tid,
  t.acquiror_company_name || ' / ' || t.target_company_name as tname,
  exists(select id from condition_document_excerpt where condition_id=c1726.id) as v1726_has_reference,
  l1726.value as v1726
 FROM company_transaction t
 left outer join
condition_option_value v1726
 inner join transaction_condition c1726
  on c1726.id=v1726.condition_id and type_id=1726
  inner join condition_option_label l1726
   on l1726.id=v1726.value_id
 on c1726.transaction_id = t.id
 WHERE t.edit_status = 'Finished' and
 (t.id in (select transaction_id from
condition_option_value v1726
 inner join transaction_condition c1726
  on c1726.id=v1726.condition_id and type_id=1726
  inner join condition_option_label l1726
   on l1726.id=v1726.value_id
 AND (v1726.value_id = 278)
)
)
 ORDER BY
 t.acquiror_company_name, t.target_company_name



If I simplify the WHERE condition it performs much better in 9.1 for this particular case (but I can't do that as the queries are generated dynamically, please see first mentioned link to understand the reason):

 WHERE t.edit_status = 'Finished' and v1726.value_id = 278

New DB dump, 9.1, simplified query: http://explain.depesz.com/s/oj1 (0.03s)

The inner query (for the "in" clause) alone takes 44ms:

select transaction_id from
condition_option_value v1726
 inner join transaction_condition c1726
  on c1726.id=v1726.condition_id and type_id=1726
  inner join condition_option_label l1726
   on l1726.id=v1726.value_id
 AND (v1726.value_id = 278)


So, what would be the reason for the full original query to take over 4s in PG 9.1?

Best,

Rodrigo.

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Igor Neyman
Date:
Subject: Re: How can i find out top high load sql queries in PostgreSQL.
Next
From: Richard Neill
Date:
Subject: Why does the query planner use two full indexes, when a dedicated partial index exists?