Postgres Hash Join speed [closed] - performance

Question

This question is unlikely to help any future visitors; it is only relevant to a small geographic area, a specific moment in time, or an extraordinarily narrow situation that is not generally applicable to the worldwide audience of the internet. For help making this question more broadly applicable, visit the help center.
Closed 9 years ago.
I have 3 tables which I wish to join using inner joins in Postgres 9.1, reads, devices, and device_patients. Below is an abbreviated schema for each table.
reads -- ~250,000 rows
CREATE TABLE reads
(
id serial NOT NULL,
device_id integer NOT NULL,
value bigint NOT NULL,
read_datetime timestamp without time zone NOT NULL,
created_at timestamp without time zone NOT NULL,
updated_at timestamp without time zone NOT NULL,
CONSTRAINT reads_pkey PRIMARY KEY (id )
)
WITH (
OIDS=FALSE
);
ALTER TABLE reads
OWNER TO postgres;
CREATE INDEX index_reads_on_device_id
ON reads
USING btree
(device_id );
CREATE INDEX index_reads_on_read_datetime
ON reads
USING btree
(read_datetime );
devices -- ~500 rows
CREATE TABLE devices
(
id serial NOT NULL,
serial_number character varying(20) NOT NULL,
created_at timestamp without time zone NOT NULL,
updated_at timestamp without time zone NOT NULL,
CONSTRAINT devices_pkey PRIMARY KEY (id )
)
WITH (
OIDS=FALSE
);
ALTER TABLE devices
OWNER TO postgres;
CREATE UNIQUE INDEX index_devices_on_serial_number
ON devices
USING btree
(serial_number COLLATE pg_catalog."default" );
patient_devices -- ~25,000 rows
CREATE TABLE patient_devices
(
id serial NOT NULL,
patient_id integer NOT NULL,
device_id integer NOT NULL,
issuance_datetime timestamp without time zone NOT NULL,
unassignment_datetime timestamp without time zone,
created_at timestamp without time zone NOT NULL,
updated_at timestamp without time zone NOT NULL,
CONSTRAINT patient_devices_pkey PRIMARY KEY (id )
)
WITH (
OIDS=FALSE
);
ALTER TABLE patient_devices
OWNER TO postgres;
CREATE INDEX index_patient_devices_on_device_id
ON patient_devices
USING btree
(device_id );
CREATE INDEX index_patient_devices_on_issuance_datetime
ON patient_devices
USING btree
(issuance_datetime );
CREATE INDEX index_patient_devices_on_patient_id
ON patient_devices
USING btree
(patient_id );
CREATE INDEX index_patient_devices_on_unassignment_datetime
ON patient_devices
USING btree
(unassignment_datetime );
patients -- ~1,000 rows
CREATE TABLE patients
(
id serial NOT NULL,
first_name character varying(50) NOT NULL,
middle_name character varying(50),
last_name character varying(50) NOT NULL,
created_at timestamp without time zone NOT NULL,
updated_at timestamp without time zone NOT NULL,
CONSTRAINT participants_pkey PRIMARY KEY (id )
)
WITH (
OIDS=FALSE
);
ALTER TABLE patients
OWNER TO postgres;
Here is my abbreviated query.
SELECT device_patients.patient_id, serial_number FROM reads
INNER JOIN devices ON devices.id = reads.device_id
INNER JOIN patient_devices ON device_patients.device_id = devices.id
WHERE (reads.read_datetime BETWEEN '2012-01-01 10:30:01.000000' AND '2013-05-18 03:03:42')
AND (read_datetime > issuance_datetime) AND ((unassignment_datetime IS NOT NULL AND read_datetime < unassignment_datetime) OR
(unassignment_datetime IS NULL))
GROUP BY serial_number, patient_devices.patient_id LIMIT 10
Ultimately this will be a small part of a larger query (without the LIMIT, I only added the limit to prove to myself that the long runtime was not due to returning a bunch of rows), however I've done a bunch of experimenting and determined that this is the slow part of the larger query. When I run EXPLAIN ANALYZE on this query I get the following output (also viewable here)
Limit (cost=156442.31..156442.41 rows=10 width=13) (actual time=2815.435..2815.441 rows=10 loops=1)
-> HashAggregate (cost=156442.31..159114.89 rows=267258 width=13) (actual time=2815.432..2815.437 rows=10 loops=1)
-> Hash Join (cost=1157.78..151455.79 rows=997304 width=13) (actual time=30.930..2739.164 rows=250150 loops=1)
Hash Cond: (devices.device_id = devices.id)
Join Filter: ((reads.read_datetime > patient_devices.issuance_datetime) AND (((patient_devices.unassignment_datetime IS NOT NULL) AND (reads.read_datetime < patient_devices.unassignment_datetime)) OR (patient_devices.unassignment_datetime IS NULL)))
-> Seq Scan on reads (cost=0.00..7236.94 rows=255396 width=12) (actual time=0.035..64.433 rows=255450 loops=1)
Filter: ((read_datetime >= '2012-01-01 10:30:01'::timestamp without time zone) AND (read_datetime <= '2013-05-18 03:03:42'::timestamp without time zone))
-> Hash (cost=900.78..900.78 rows=20560 width=37) (actual time=30.830..30.830 rows=25015 loops=1)
Buckets: 4096 Batches: 1 Memory Usage: 1755kB
-> Hash Join (cost=19.90..900.78 rows=20560 width=37) (actual time=0.776..20.551 rows=25015 loops=1)
Hash Cond: (patient_devices.device_id = devices.id)
-> Seq Scan on patient_devices (cost=0.00..581.93 rows=24893 width=24) (actual time=0.014..7.867 rows=25545 loops=1)
Filter: ((unassignment_datetime IS NOT NULL) OR (unassignment_datetime IS NULL))
-> Hash (cost=13.61..13.61 rows=503 width=13) (actual time=0.737..0.737 rows=503 loops=1)
Buckets: 1024 Batches: 1 Memory Usage: 24kB
-> Seq Scan on devices (cost=0.00..13.61 rows=503 width=13) (actual time=0.016..0.466 rows=503 loops=1)
Filter: (entity_id = 2)
Total runtime: 2820.392 ms
My question is how do I speed this up? Right now I'm running this on my Windows machine for testing, but ultimately it will be deployed on Ubuntu, will that make a difference? Any insight into why this takes 2 seconds would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks
It has been suggested that the LIMIT might be altering the query plan. Here is the same query without the LIMIT. The slow part still appears to be the Hash Join.
Also, here are the relevant tuning parameters. Again I'm only testing this on Windows now, and I don't know what effect this would have on a Linux machine
shared_buffers = 2GB
effective_cache_size = 4GB
work_mem = 256MB
random_page_cost = 2.0
Here are the statistics for the reads table
Statistic Value
Sequential Scans 130
Sequential Tuples Read 28865850
Index Scans 283630
Index Tuples Fetched 141421907
Tuples Inserted 255450
Tuples Updated 0
Tuples Deleted 0
Tuples HOT Updated 0
Live Tuples 255450
Dead Tuples 0
Heap Blocks Read 20441
Heap Blocks Hit 3493033
Index Blocks Read 8824
Index Blocks Hit 4840210
Toast Blocks Read
Toast Blocks Hit
Toast Index Blocks Read
Toast Index Blocks Hit
Last Vacuum 2013-05-20 09:23:03.782-07
Last Autovacuum
Last Analyze 2013-05-20 09:23:03.91-07
Last Autoanalyze 2013-05-17 19:01:44.075-07
Vacuum counter 1
Autovacuum counter 0
Analyze counter 1
Autoanalyze counter 6
Table Size 27 MB
Toast Table Size none
Indexes Size 34 MB
Here are the statistics for the devices table
Statistic Value
Sequential Scans 119
Sequential Tuples Read 63336
Index Scans 1053935
Index Tuples Fetched 1053693
Tuples Inserted 609
Tuples Updated 0
Tuples Deleted 0
Tuples HOT Updated 0
Live Tuples 609
Dead Tuples 0
Heap Blocks Read 32
Heap Blocks Hit 1054553
Index Blocks Read 32
Index Blocks Hit 2114305
Toast Blocks Read
Toast Blocks Hit
Toast Index Blocks Read
Toast Index Blocks Hit
Last Vacuum
Last Autovacuum
Last Analyze
Last Autoanalyze 2013-05-17 19:02:49.692-07
Vacuum counter 0
Autovacuum counter 0
Analyze counter 0
Autoanalyze counter 2
Table Size 48 kB
Toast Table Size none
Indexes Size 128 kB
Here are the statistics for the patient_devices table
Statistic Value
Sequential Scans 137
Sequential Tuples Read 3065400
Index Scans 853990
Index Tuples Fetched 46143763
Tuples Inserted 25545
Tuples Updated 24936
Tuples Deleted 0
Tuples HOT Updated 0
Live Tuples 25547
Dead Tuples 929
Heap Blocks Read 1959
Heap Blocks Hit 6099617
Index Blocks Read 1077
Index Blocks Hit 2462681
Toast Blocks Read
Toast Blocks Hit
Toast Index Blocks Read
Toast Index Blocks Hit
Last Vacuum
Last Autovacuum 2013-05-17 19:01:44.576-07
Last Analyze
Last Autoanalyze 2013-05-17 19:01:44.697-07
Vacuum counter 0
Autovacuum counter 6
Analyze counter 0
Autoanalyze counter 6
Table Size 2624 kB
Toast Table Size none
Indexes Size 5312 kB
Below is the full query that I'm trying to speed up. The smaller query is indeed faster, but I was unable to make my full query faster which is reproduced below. As suggested, I added 4 new indices, UNIQUE(device_id, issuance_datetime), UNIQUE(device_id, issuance_datetime), UNIQUE(patient_id, unassignment_datetime), UNIQUE(patient_id, unassignment_datetime)
SELECT
first_name
, last_name
, MAX(max_read) AS read_datetime
, SUM(value) AS value
, serial_number
FROM (
SELECT
pa.first_name
, pa.last_name
, value
, first_value(de.serial_number) OVER(PARTITION BY pa.id ORDER BY re.read_datetime DESC) AS serial_number -- I'm not sure if this is a good way to do this, but I don't know of another way
, re.read_datetime
, MAX(re.read_datetime) OVER (PARTITION BY pd.id) AS max_read
FROM reads re
INNER JOIN devices de ON de.id = re.device_id
INNER JOIN patient_devices pd ON pd.device_id = de.id
AND re.read_datetime >= pd.issuance_datetime
AND re.read_datetime < COALESCE(pd.unassignment_datetime , 'infinity'::timestamp)
INNER JOIN patients pa ON pa.id = pd.patient_id
WHERE re.read_datetime BETWEEN '2012-01-01 10:30:01' AND '2013-05-18 03:03:42'
) AS foo WHERE read_datetime = max_read
GROUP BY first_name, last_name, serial_number ORDER BY value desc
LIMIT 10
Sorry for not posting this earlier, but I thought this query would be too complicated, and was trying to simply the problem, but apparently I still can't figure it out. It seems like it would be a LOT quicker if I could limit the results returned by the nested select using the max_read variable, but according to numerous sources, that isn't allowed in Postgres.

Answer 1

FYI: sanitised query:
SELECT pd.patient_id
, de.serial_number
FROM reads re
INNER JOIN devices de ON de.id = re.device_id
INNER JOIN patient_devices pd ON pd.device_id = de.id
AND re.read_datetime >= pd.issuance_datetime -- changed this from '>' to '>='
AND (re.read_datetime < pd.unissuance_datetime OR pd.unissuance_datetime IS NULL)
WHERE re.read_datetime BETWEEN '2012-01-01 10:30:01.000000' AND '2013-05-18 03:03:42'
GROUP BY de.serial_number, pd.patient_id
LIMIT 10
;
UPDATE: without the original typos:
EXPLAIN ANALYZE
SELECT pd.patient_id
, de.serial_number
FROM reads re
INNER JOIN devices de ON de.id = re.device_id
INNER JOIN patient_devices pd ON pd.device_id = de.id
AND re.read_datetime >= pd.issuance_datetime
AND (re.read_datetime < pd.unassignment_datetime OR pd.unassignment_datetime IS NULL)
WHERE re.read_datetime BETWEEN '2012-01-01 10:30:01.000000' AND '2013-05-18 03:03:42'
GROUP BY de.serial_number, pd.patient_id
LIMIT 10
;
UPDATE: this is about 6 times as fast here (on synthetic data, and with a slightly altered data model)
-- Modified data model + synthetic data:
CREATE TABLE devices
( id serial NOT NULL
, serial_number character varying(20) NOT NULL
-- , created_at timestamp without time zone NOT NULL
-- , updated_at timestamp without time zone NOT NULL
, CONSTRAINT devices_pkey PRIMARY KEY (id )
, UNIQUE (serial_number)
) ;
CREATE TABLE reads
-- ( id serial NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY -- You don't need this surrogate key
( device_id integer NOT NULL REFERENCES devices (id)
, value bigint NOT NULL
, read_datetime timestamp without time zone NOT NULL
-- , created_at timestamp without time zone NOT NULL
-- , updated_at timestamp without time zone NOT NULL
, PRIMARY KEY ( device_id, read_datetime)
) ;
CREATE TABLE patient_devices
-- ( id serial NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY -- You don't need this surrogate key
( patient_id integer NOT NULL -- REFERENCES patients (id)
, device_id integer NOT NULL REFERENCES devices(id)
, issuance_datetime timestamp without time zone NOT NULL
, unassignment_datetime timestamp without time zone
-- , created_at timestamp without time zone NOT NULL
-- , updated_at timestamp without time zone NOT NULL
, PRIMARY KEY (device_id, issuance_datetime)
, UNIQUE (device_id, unassignment_datetime)
) ;
-- CREATE INDEX index_patient_devices_on_issuance_datetime ON patient_devices (device_id, unassignment_datetime );
-- may need some additional indices later
-- devices -- ~500 rows
INSERT INTO devices(serial_number) SELECT 'No_' || gs::text FROM generate_series(1,500) gs;
-- reads -- ~100K rows
INSERT INTO reads(device_id, read_datetime, value)
SELECT de.id, gs
, (random()*1000000)::bigint
FROM devices de
JOIN generate_series('2012-01-01', '2013-05-01' , '1 hour' ::interval) gs
ON random() < 0.02;
-- patient_devices -- ~25,000 rows
INSERT INTO patient_devices(device_id, issuance_datetime, patient_id)
SELECT DISTINCT ON (re.device_id, read_datetime)
re.device_id, read_datetime, pa
FROM generate_series(1,100) pa
JOIN reads re
ON random() < 0.01;
-- close the open intervals
UPDATE patient_devices dst
SET unassignment_datetime = src.issuance_datetime
FROM patient_devices src
WHERE src.device_id = dst.device_id
AND src.issuance_datetime > dst.issuance_datetime
AND NOT EXISTS ( SELECT *
FROM patient_devices nx
WHERE nx.device_id = src.device_id
AND nx.issuance_datetime > dst.issuance_datetime
AND nx.issuance_datetime < src.issuance_datetime
)
;
VACUUM ANALYZE patient_devices;
VACUUM ANALYZE devices;
VACUUM ANALYZE reads;
-- EXPLAIN ANALYZE
SELECT pd.patient_id
, de.serial_number
--, COUNT (*) AS zcount
FROM reads re
INNER JOIN devices de ON de.id = re.device_id
INNER JOIN patient_devices pd ON pd.device_id = de.id
AND re.read_datetime >= pd.issuance_datetime
AND re.read_datetime < COALESCE(pd.unassignment_datetime , 'infinity'::timestamp)
WHERE re.read_datetime BETWEEN '2012-01-01 10:30:01' AND '2013-05-18 03:03:42'
GROUP BY de.serial_number, pd.patient_id
LIMIT 10
;

Answer 2

look at the parts of the analyze report where you see Seq Scan.
for example this parts could use some indexes:
Seq Scan on patient_devices - > unassignment_datetime
Seq Scan on devices -> entity_id
Seq Scan on reads - > read_datetime
about read_datetime: it is possible to create a specific index for mathematical equation like > and <=, which will come handy. i dont know the syntax for it, though