SELECT operation with four joins results in bad performance
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0;
}
I'm having problems with a slow query. The query purpose is to get doers ids for X job who didn't exceed specified limits on realizations and also are in range of possible job places.
Resources
Query:
SELECT DISTINCT doers.id FROM doers
JOIN doer_locations dl ON dl.doer_id = doers.id
JOIN job_places jp ON (jp.lat - 0.3147625620715557) < dl.lat AND (jp.lat + 0.3147625620715557) > dl.lat AND (jp.lng - 0.5001626620527362) < dl.lng AND (jp.lng + 0.5001626620527362) > dl.lng
LEFT JOIN job_realizations jr ON jr.job_place_id = jp.id AND jr.status IN (1, 2, 3, 4)
LEFT JOIN job_realizations jrpd ON jrpd.job_place_id = jp.id AND jrpd.doer_id = doers.id AND jrpd.status IN (1, 2, 3, 4)
WHERE (jp.job_id = 1 AND doers.id IS NOT NULL)
GROUP BY doers.id, jp.id
HAVING COUNT(DISTINCT jr.id) < jp.realizations_per_place AND COUNT(DISTINCT jrpd.id) < jp.realizations_per_place_per_doer
Depesz explain
Raw explain analyze
Simplified Schema
Consideration
I'm not sure if I read the explain correctly but it seems it loses on performance especially when it calculates stuff on the run also HAVING COUNT(DISTINCT)
seems pretty expensive.
Additional information
The type of both the lat
and long
columns is float.
postgresql query-performance postgresql-10
bumped to the homepage by Community♦ 3 mins ago
This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed.
|
show 9 more comments
I'm having problems with a slow query. The query purpose is to get doers ids for X job who didn't exceed specified limits on realizations and also are in range of possible job places.
Resources
Query:
SELECT DISTINCT doers.id FROM doers
JOIN doer_locations dl ON dl.doer_id = doers.id
JOIN job_places jp ON (jp.lat - 0.3147625620715557) < dl.lat AND (jp.lat + 0.3147625620715557) > dl.lat AND (jp.lng - 0.5001626620527362) < dl.lng AND (jp.lng + 0.5001626620527362) > dl.lng
LEFT JOIN job_realizations jr ON jr.job_place_id = jp.id AND jr.status IN (1, 2, 3, 4)
LEFT JOIN job_realizations jrpd ON jrpd.job_place_id = jp.id AND jrpd.doer_id = doers.id AND jrpd.status IN (1, 2, 3, 4)
WHERE (jp.job_id = 1 AND doers.id IS NOT NULL)
GROUP BY doers.id, jp.id
HAVING COUNT(DISTINCT jr.id) < jp.realizations_per_place AND COUNT(DISTINCT jrpd.id) < jp.realizations_per_place_per_doer
Depesz explain
Raw explain analyze
Simplified Schema
Consideration
I'm not sure if I read the explain correctly but it seems it loses on performance especially when it calculates stuff on the run also HAVING COUNT(DISTINCT)
seems pretty expensive.
Additional information
The type of both the lat
and long
columns is float.
postgresql query-performance postgresql-10
bumped to the homepage by Community♦ 3 mins ago
This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed.
Regardingdoers RIGHT JOIN doer_locations
. Is there ever a doer_location without a corresponding doer?
– Lennart
Oct 1 '18 at 11:30
Shouldn't happen.
– mist
Oct 1 '18 at 11:39
What is the purpose of the RIGHT JOIN then? Can't you replace it with a plain JOIN?
– Lennart
Oct 1 '18 at 11:43
1
What are the types oflat
andlong
?
– ypercubeᵀᴹ
Oct 2 '18 at 8:38
2
You could use gist indexes and if these are actual geo location points, you could have more accurate results withll_to_earth()
function (and gist indexes). See this answer: dba.stackexchange.com/questions/158349/…
– ypercubeᵀᴹ
Oct 2 '18 at 9:28
|
show 9 more comments
I'm having problems with a slow query. The query purpose is to get doers ids for X job who didn't exceed specified limits on realizations and also are in range of possible job places.
Resources
Query:
SELECT DISTINCT doers.id FROM doers
JOIN doer_locations dl ON dl.doer_id = doers.id
JOIN job_places jp ON (jp.lat - 0.3147625620715557) < dl.lat AND (jp.lat + 0.3147625620715557) > dl.lat AND (jp.lng - 0.5001626620527362) < dl.lng AND (jp.lng + 0.5001626620527362) > dl.lng
LEFT JOIN job_realizations jr ON jr.job_place_id = jp.id AND jr.status IN (1, 2, 3, 4)
LEFT JOIN job_realizations jrpd ON jrpd.job_place_id = jp.id AND jrpd.doer_id = doers.id AND jrpd.status IN (1, 2, 3, 4)
WHERE (jp.job_id = 1 AND doers.id IS NOT NULL)
GROUP BY doers.id, jp.id
HAVING COUNT(DISTINCT jr.id) < jp.realizations_per_place AND COUNT(DISTINCT jrpd.id) < jp.realizations_per_place_per_doer
Depesz explain
Raw explain analyze
Simplified Schema
Consideration
I'm not sure if I read the explain correctly but it seems it loses on performance especially when it calculates stuff on the run also HAVING COUNT(DISTINCT)
seems pretty expensive.
Additional information
The type of both the lat
and long
columns is float.
postgresql query-performance postgresql-10
I'm having problems with a slow query. The query purpose is to get doers ids for X job who didn't exceed specified limits on realizations and also are in range of possible job places.
Resources
Query:
SELECT DISTINCT doers.id FROM doers
JOIN doer_locations dl ON dl.doer_id = doers.id
JOIN job_places jp ON (jp.lat - 0.3147625620715557) < dl.lat AND (jp.lat + 0.3147625620715557) > dl.lat AND (jp.lng - 0.5001626620527362) < dl.lng AND (jp.lng + 0.5001626620527362) > dl.lng
LEFT JOIN job_realizations jr ON jr.job_place_id = jp.id AND jr.status IN (1, 2, 3, 4)
LEFT JOIN job_realizations jrpd ON jrpd.job_place_id = jp.id AND jrpd.doer_id = doers.id AND jrpd.status IN (1, 2, 3, 4)
WHERE (jp.job_id = 1 AND doers.id IS NOT NULL)
GROUP BY doers.id, jp.id
HAVING COUNT(DISTINCT jr.id) < jp.realizations_per_place AND COUNT(DISTINCT jrpd.id) < jp.realizations_per_place_per_doer
Depesz explain
Raw explain analyze
Simplified Schema
Consideration
I'm not sure if I read the explain correctly but it seems it loses on performance especially when it calculates stuff on the run also HAVING COUNT(DISTINCT)
seems pretty expensive.
Additional information
The type of both the lat
and long
columns is float.
postgresql query-performance postgresql-10
postgresql query-performance postgresql-10
edited Oct 2 '18 at 22:16
MDCCL
6,85331745
6,85331745
asked Oct 1 '18 at 11:22
mistmist
162
162
bumped to the homepage by Community♦ 3 mins ago
This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed.
bumped to the homepage by Community♦ 3 mins ago
This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed.
Regardingdoers RIGHT JOIN doer_locations
. Is there ever a doer_location without a corresponding doer?
– Lennart
Oct 1 '18 at 11:30
Shouldn't happen.
– mist
Oct 1 '18 at 11:39
What is the purpose of the RIGHT JOIN then? Can't you replace it with a plain JOIN?
– Lennart
Oct 1 '18 at 11:43
1
What are the types oflat
andlong
?
– ypercubeᵀᴹ
Oct 2 '18 at 8:38
2
You could use gist indexes and if these are actual geo location points, you could have more accurate results withll_to_earth()
function (and gist indexes). See this answer: dba.stackexchange.com/questions/158349/…
– ypercubeᵀᴹ
Oct 2 '18 at 9:28
|
show 9 more comments
Regardingdoers RIGHT JOIN doer_locations
. Is there ever a doer_location without a corresponding doer?
– Lennart
Oct 1 '18 at 11:30
Shouldn't happen.
– mist
Oct 1 '18 at 11:39
What is the purpose of the RIGHT JOIN then? Can't you replace it with a plain JOIN?
– Lennart
Oct 1 '18 at 11:43
1
What are the types oflat
andlong
?
– ypercubeᵀᴹ
Oct 2 '18 at 8:38
2
You could use gist indexes and if these are actual geo location points, you could have more accurate results withll_to_earth()
function (and gist indexes). See this answer: dba.stackexchange.com/questions/158349/…
– ypercubeᵀᴹ
Oct 2 '18 at 9:28
Regarding
doers RIGHT JOIN doer_locations
. Is there ever a doer_location without a corresponding doer?– Lennart
Oct 1 '18 at 11:30
Regarding
doers RIGHT JOIN doer_locations
. Is there ever a doer_location without a corresponding doer?– Lennart
Oct 1 '18 at 11:30
Shouldn't happen.
– mist
Oct 1 '18 at 11:39
Shouldn't happen.
– mist
Oct 1 '18 at 11:39
What is the purpose of the RIGHT JOIN then? Can't you replace it with a plain JOIN?
– Lennart
Oct 1 '18 at 11:43
What is the purpose of the RIGHT JOIN then? Can't you replace it with a plain JOIN?
– Lennart
Oct 1 '18 at 11:43
1
1
What are the types of
lat
and long
?– ypercubeᵀᴹ
Oct 2 '18 at 8:38
What are the types of
lat
and long
?– ypercubeᵀᴹ
Oct 2 '18 at 8:38
2
2
You could use gist indexes and if these are actual geo location points, you could have more accurate results with
ll_to_earth()
function (and gist indexes). See this answer: dba.stackexchange.com/questions/158349/…– ypercubeᵀᴹ
Oct 2 '18 at 9:28
You could use gist indexes and if these are actual geo location points, you could have more accurate results with
ll_to_earth()
function (and gist indexes). See this answer: dba.stackexchange.com/questions/158349/…– ypercubeᵀᴹ
Oct 2 '18 at 9:28
|
show 9 more comments
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
--I think this is mandatory for your query performance:
--Because you do joins using this columns from parent to child
create index on doer_locations(doer_id);
create index on job_realizations(job_place_id);
create index on job_realizations(doer_id);
--Maybe very big and slowdown other operations...
--create index on job_realizations(lat);
--create index on doer_locations(lat);
--create index on job_realizations(lng);
--create index on doer_locations(lng);
--Maybe not mandatory:
create index on job_realization(realizations_per_place);
create index on job_realization(realizations_per_place_per_doer);
SELECT DISTINCT doers.id FROM doers
JOIN doer_locations dl ON dl.doer_id = doers.id
JOIN job_places jp ON (jp.lat - 0.3147625620715557) < dl.lat AND (jp.lat + 0.3147625620715557) > dl.lat AND (jp.lng - 0.5001626620527362) < dl.lng AND (jp.lng + 0.5001626620527362) > dl.lng
LEFT JOIN job_realizations jr ON jr.job_place_id = jp.id
LEFT JOIN job_realizations jrpd ON jrpd.job_place_id = jp.id AND jrpd.doer_id = doers.id
WHERE (jp.job_id = 1 AND doers.id IS NOT NULL)
GROUP BY doers.id, jp.id
HAVING COUNT(DISTINCT jr.id) < jp.realizations_per_place AND COUNT(DISTINCT jrpd.id) < jp.realizations_per_place_per_doer
Please try and if it solve your problem select it as the right answer.
As you could see in the explain I posted, I have tried with btree indexes on most of those attributes. I haven't tried with indexes on realizations_per_place / realizations_per_place_per_doer though.
– mist
Oct 2 '18 at 7:40
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "182"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fdba.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f218960%2fselect-operation-with-four-joins-results-in-bad-performance%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
--I think this is mandatory for your query performance:
--Because you do joins using this columns from parent to child
create index on doer_locations(doer_id);
create index on job_realizations(job_place_id);
create index on job_realizations(doer_id);
--Maybe very big and slowdown other operations...
--create index on job_realizations(lat);
--create index on doer_locations(lat);
--create index on job_realizations(lng);
--create index on doer_locations(lng);
--Maybe not mandatory:
create index on job_realization(realizations_per_place);
create index on job_realization(realizations_per_place_per_doer);
SELECT DISTINCT doers.id FROM doers
JOIN doer_locations dl ON dl.doer_id = doers.id
JOIN job_places jp ON (jp.lat - 0.3147625620715557) < dl.lat AND (jp.lat + 0.3147625620715557) > dl.lat AND (jp.lng - 0.5001626620527362) < dl.lng AND (jp.lng + 0.5001626620527362) > dl.lng
LEFT JOIN job_realizations jr ON jr.job_place_id = jp.id
LEFT JOIN job_realizations jrpd ON jrpd.job_place_id = jp.id AND jrpd.doer_id = doers.id
WHERE (jp.job_id = 1 AND doers.id IS NOT NULL)
GROUP BY doers.id, jp.id
HAVING COUNT(DISTINCT jr.id) < jp.realizations_per_place AND COUNT(DISTINCT jrpd.id) < jp.realizations_per_place_per_doer
Please try and if it solve your problem select it as the right answer.
As you could see in the explain I posted, I have tried with btree indexes on most of those attributes. I haven't tried with indexes on realizations_per_place / realizations_per_place_per_doer though.
– mist
Oct 2 '18 at 7:40
add a comment |
--I think this is mandatory for your query performance:
--Because you do joins using this columns from parent to child
create index on doer_locations(doer_id);
create index on job_realizations(job_place_id);
create index on job_realizations(doer_id);
--Maybe very big and slowdown other operations...
--create index on job_realizations(lat);
--create index on doer_locations(lat);
--create index on job_realizations(lng);
--create index on doer_locations(lng);
--Maybe not mandatory:
create index on job_realization(realizations_per_place);
create index on job_realization(realizations_per_place_per_doer);
SELECT DISTINCT doers.id FROM doers
JOIN doer_locations dl ON dl.doer_id = doers.id
JOIN job_places jp ON (jp.lat - 0.3147625620715557) < dl.lat AND (jp.lat + 0.3147625620715557) > dl.lat AND (jp.lng - 0.5001626620527362) < dl.lng AND (jp.lng + 0.5001626620527362) > dl.lng
LEFT JOIN job_realizations jr ON jr.job_place_id = jp.id
LEFT JOIN job_realizations jrpd ON jrpd.job_place_id = jp.id AND jrpd.doer_id = doers.id
WHERE (jp.job_id = 1 AND doers.id IS NOT NULL)
GROUP BY doers.id, jp.id
HAVING COUNT(DISTINCT jr.id) < jp.realizations_per_place AND COUNT(DISTINCT jrpd.id) < jp.realizations_per_place_per_doer
Please try and if it solve your problem select it as the right answer.
As you could see in the explain I posted, I have tried with btree indexes on most of those attributes. I haven't tried with indexes on realizations_per_place / realizations_per_place_per_doer though.
– mist
Oct 2 '18 at 7:40
add a comment |
--I think this is mandatory for your query performance:
--Because you do joins using this columns from parent to child
create index on doer_locations(doer_id);
create index on job_realizations(job_place_id);
create index on job_realizations(doer_id);
--Maybe very big and slowdown other operations...
--create index on job_realizations(lat);
--create index on doer_locations(lat);
--create index on job_realizations(lng);
--create index on doer_locations(lng);
--Maybe not mandatory:
create index on job_realization(realizations_per_place);
create index on job_realization(realizations_per_place_per_doer);
SELECT DISTINCT doers.id FROM doers
JOIN doer_locations dl ON dl.doer_id = doers.id
JOIN job_places jp ON (jp.lat - 0.3147625620715557) < dl.lat AND (jp.lat + 0.3147625620715557) > dl.lat AND (jp.lng - 0.5001626620527362) < dl.lng AND (jp.lng + 0.5001626620527362) > dl.lng
LEFT JOIN job_realizations jr ON jr.job_place_id = jp.id
LEFT JOIN job_realizations jrpd ON jrpd.job_place_id = jp.id AND jrpd.doer_id = doers.id
WHERE (jp.job_id = 1 AND doers.id IS NOT NULL)
GROUP BY doers.id, jp.id
HAVING COUNT(DISTINCT jr.id) < jp.realizations_per_place AND COUNT(DISTINCT jrpd.id) < jp.realizations_per_place_per_doer
Please try and if it solve your problem select it as the right answer.
--I think this is mandatory for your query performance:
--Because you do joins using this columns from parent to child
create index on doer_locations(doer_id);
create index on job_realizations(job_place_id);
create index on job_realizations(doer_id);
--Maybe very big and slowdown other operations...
--create index on job_realizations(lat);
--create index on doer_locations(lat);
--create index on job_realizations(lng);
--create index on doer_locations(lng);
--Maybe not mandatory:
create index on job_realization(realizations_per_place);
create index on job_realization(realizations_per_place_per_doer);
SELECT DISTINCT doers.id FROM doers
JOIN doer_locations dl ON dl.doer_id = doers.id
JOIN job_places jp ON (jp.lat - 0.3147625620715557) < dl.lat AND (jp.lat + 0.3147625620715557) > dl.lat AND (jp.lng - 0.5001626620527362) < dl.lng AND (jp.lng + 0.5001626620527362) > dl.lng
LEFT JOIN job_realizations jr ON jr.job_place_id = jp.id
LEFT JOIN job_realizations jrpd ON jrpd.job_place_id = jp.id AND jrpd.doer_id = doers.id
WHERE (jp.job_id = 1 AND doers.id IS NOT NULL)
GROUP BY doers.id, jp.id
HAVING COUNT(DISTINCT jr.id) < jp.realizations_per_place AND COUNT(DISTINCT jrpd.id) < jp.realizations_per_place_per_doer
Please try and if it solve your problem select it as the right answer.
answered Oct 1 '18 at 19:34
Luciano Andress MartiniLuciano Andress Martini
745518
745518
As you could see in the explain I posted, I have tried with btree indexes on most of those attributes. I haven't tried with indexes on realizations_per_place / realizations_per_place_per_doer though.
– mist
Oct 2 '18 at 7:40
add a comment |
As you could see in the explain I posted, I have tried with btree indexes on most of those attributes. I haven't tried with indexes on realizations_per_place / realizations_per_place_per_doer though.
– mist
Oct 2 '18 at 7:40
As you could see in the explain I posted, I have tried with btree indexes on most of those attributes. I haven't tried with indexes on realizations_per_place / realizations_per_place_per_doer though.
– mist
Oct 2 '18 at 7:40
As you could see in the explain I posted, I have tried with btree indexes on most of those attributes. I haven't tried with indexes on realizations_per_place / realizations_per_place_per_doer though.
– mist
Oct 2 '18 at 7:40
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Database Administrators Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fdba.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f218960%2fselect-operation-with-four-joins-results-in-bad-performance%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Regarding
doers RIGHT JOIN doer_locations
. Is there ever a doer_location without a corresponding doer?– Lennart
Oct 1 '18 at 11:30
Shouldn't happen.
– mist
Oct 1 '18 at 11:39
What is the purpose of the RIGHT JOIN then? Can't you replace it with a plain JOIN?
– Lennart
Oct 1 '18 at 11:43
1
What are the types of
lat
andlong
?– ypercubeᵀᴹ
Oct 2 '18 at 8:38
2
You could use gist indexes and if these are actual geo location points, you could have more accurate results with
ll_to_earth()
function (and gist indexes). See this answer: dba.stackexchange.com/questions/158349/…– ypercubeᵀᴹ
Oct 2 '18 at 9:28