The database is very slow !

[krystoffff]

I currently have PostgreSQL 7.1 installed on a server with about 700
Mb of RAM.

I have many problems of speed with a database I created. For example,
it took almost 12 sec to run the query "select * from table" directly
from PostgreSQL, on a table with 4000 records and 60 fields ...
And the whole application built on this database is very very slow
(some pages take almost 20 seconds to load !)

I verifed the indexes, I think they are ok, and I tried to make my
queries as short as possible (without select * but with select
field1, field2, ...)

But anyway, I guess there is a problem of speed directly with the
database, because I think that is not normal to need 12 sec to run a
query on a table with only 4000 records ...

Has anybody an idea ?
Thanks
Krystoffff

[Christopher Browne]

pr******@silesk y.com (krystoffff) writes:

I currently have PostgreSQL 7.1 installed on a server with about 700
Mb of RAM.

I have many problems of speed with a database I created. For example,
it took almost 12 sec to run the query "select * from table" directly
from PostgreSQL, on a table with 4000 records and 60 fields ...
And the whole application built on this database is very very slow
(some pages take almost 20 seconds to load !)

I verifed the indexes, I think they are ok, and I tried to make my
queries as short as possible (without select * but with select
field1, field2, ...)

But anyway, I guess there is a problem of speed directly with the
database, because I think that is not normal to need 12 sec to run a
query on a table with only 4000 records ...

The perpetual first question...

"Have you run VACUUM ANALYZE?"

You may want to run VACUUM VERBOSE on the database, and see how many
dead tuples get deleted; if a lot of data gets thrown away, that's a
good sign that things ought to shortly get faster.

ANALYZE will recalculate statistics that are used for query planning,
and that, too, is likely to be helpful.

If you can, head over to the [Performance] list, and supply some
sample queries with the output of running "EXPLAIN ANALYZE" on them.

Here's a sample for a query that nests together a whole bunch of
views.

portfolio=# explain analyze select * from cdnportfolio;
QUERY PLAN
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subquery Scan cdnportfolio (cost=6311.41.. 11477.08 rows=22 width=153) (actual time=3327.63..3 330.07 rows=25 loops=1) -> Aggregate (cost=6311.41.. 11477.08 rows=22 width=153) (actual time=3327.62..3 329.91 rows=25 loops=1)
-> Group (cost=6311.41.. 11473.17 rows=224 width=153) (actual time=3327.38..3 328.26 rows=39 loops=1)
-> Merge Join (cost=6311.41.. 11472.61 rows=224 width=153) (actual time=3327.36..3 327.99 rows=39 loops=1)
Merge Cond: ("outer".sym bol = "inner".sym bol)
-> Sort (cost=263.39..2 63.41 rows=8 width=102) (actual time=50.49..50. 51 rows=39 loops=1)
Sort Key: stocks.symbol
-> Hash Join (cost=261.57..2 63.27 rows=8 width=102) (actual time=49.58..50. 16 rows=39 loops=1)
Hash Cond: ("outer".sym bol = "inner".sym bol)
-> Seq Scan on stocktxns (cost=0.00..1.4 0 rows=40 width=31) (actual time=0.08..0.23 rows=40 loops=1)
-> Hash (cost=261.55..2 61.55 rows=5 width=71) (actual time=49.40..49. 40 rows=0 loops=1)
-> Hash Join (cost=260.10..2 61.55 rows=5 width=71) (actual time=49.05..49. 33 rows=25 loops=1)
Hash Cond: ("outer".exchan ge = "inner".exchang e)
-> Seq Scan on stocks (cost=0.00..1.2 5 rows=25 width=15) (actual time=0.08..0.16 rows=25 loops=1)
-> Hash (cost=260.10..2 60.10 rows=1 width=56) (actual time=48.87..48. 87 rows=0 loops=1)
-> Nested Loop (cost=220.18..2 60.10 rows=1 width=56) (actual time=48.71..48. 84 rows=4 loops=1)
-> Merge Join (cost=220.18..2 21.97 rows=7 width=29) (actual time=48.62..48. 65 rows=4 loops=1)
Merge Cond: ("outer".from_c urr = "inner".currenc y)
-> Sort (cost=219.10..2 19.94 rows=338 width=22) (actual time=48.35..48. 35 rows=2 loops=1)
Sort Key: lastcurrdate.fr om_curr
-> Subquery Scan lastcurrdate (cost=0.00..204 .92 rows=338 width=22) (actual time=0.51..48.2 4 rows=2 loops=1)
-> Aggregate (cost=0.00..204 .92 rows=338 width=22) (actual time=0.50..48.2 2 rows=2 loops=1)
-> Group (cost=0.00..196 .47 rows=3377 width=22) (actual time=0.41..43.2 2 rows=3376 loops=1)
-> Index Scan using currency_conver sion_idx on currency_conver sion (cost=0.00..179 .59 rows=3377 width=22) (actual time=0.40..28.9 3 rows=3376 loops=1)
Filter: (to_curr = 'CDN'::bpchar)
-> Sort (cost=1.08..1.0 9 rows=4 width=14) (actual time=0.24..0.24 rows=4 loops=1)
Sort Key: exchanges.curre ncy
-> Seq Scan on exchanges (cost=0.00..1.0 4 rows=4 width=14) (actual time=0.10..0.12 rows=4 loops=1)
-> Index Scan using currency_conver sion_idx on currency_conver sion (cost=0.00..5.6 3 rows=1 width=27) (actual time=0.03..0.04 rows=1 loops=4)
Index Cond: (("outer".from_ curr = currency_conver sion.from_curr) AND (currency_conve rsion.to_curr = 'CDN'::bpchar) AND (currency_conve rsion.date = "outer".lastdat e))
-> Materialize (cost=11203.81. .11203.81 rows=990 width=51) (actual time=3276.83..3 276.87 rows=53 loops=1)
-> Merge Join (cost=6048.02.. 11203.81 rows=990 width=51) (actual time=1797.46..3 276.67 rows=39 loops=1)
Merge Cond: (("outer".symbo l = "inner".sym bol) AND ("outer".dat e = "inner".lastdat e)) -> Index Scan using stockprice_by_d ate on stockprices (cost=0.00..482 7.31 rows=104549 width=27) (actual time=0.46..921. 54 rows=104549 loops=1)
-> Sort (cost=6048.02.. 6074.15 rows=10455 width=16) (actual time=1713.56..1 713.63 rows=39 loops=1)
Sort Key: lastdate.symbol , lastdate.lastda te
-> Subquery Scan lastdate (cost=0.00..535 0.05 rows=10455 width=16) (actual time=178.81..17 13.10 rows=39 loops=1)
-> Aggregate (cost=0.00..535 0.05 rows=10455 width=16) (actual time=178.80..17 12.77 rows=39 loops=1)
-> Group (cost=0.00..508 8.68 rows=104549 width=16) (actual time=0.03..1550 .08 rows=104549 loops=1)
-> Index Scan using stockprice_by_d ate on stockprices (cost=0.00..482 7.31 rows=104549 width=16) (actual time=0.02..1062 .58 rows=104549 loops=1)
Total runtime: 3332.18 msec
(41 rows)
--
(reverse (concatenate 'string "gro.mca" "@" "enworbbc") )
http://cbbrowne.com/info/postgresql.html
It's easy to identify people who can't count to ten. They're in front
of you in the supermarket express lane. -June Henderson

[Tom Lane]

pr******@silesk y.com (krystoffff) writes:

I have many problems of speed with a database I created. For example,
it took almost 12 sec to run the query "select * from table" directly
from PostgreSQL, on a table with 4000 records and 60 fields ...

When did you last VACUUM this table?

regards, tom lane

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?

http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html

[krystoffff]

Thanks for your answers

I just vacuumed the database just before a test, and it didn't change
anything ... Sorry not to have mentionned it

Any other suggestions ?

[Jason Godden]

Hi Kystof,

I haven't read the other suggestions but I'm running a db where some tables
and views have over a million records without any issues on similiar
hardware.

Out of curiosity - have you actually performance tuned your OS and the
postmaster (trhough postgres.conf)? If you haven't done any of these then I
wouldn't be surprised if the db was slow - i think the default install of
most linux distros leaves you with 32mb shared memory which makes your 700mb
of RAM useless. As far as 60 fields are concerned I doubt that would be a
problem although I've never used a table with more than 20 - anybody out
there know if number of fields on a table can create performance issues?

Lastly - how complicated are your indexes? If you have indexed every field on
that table then that could be an obvious issue. How many fields from the
table have foreign key constraints?

Let me know how you go,

Jason

On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 11:22 pm, krystoffff wrote:

Thanks for your answers

I just vacuumed the database just before a test, and it didn't change
anything ... Sorry not to have mentionned it

Any other suggestions ?

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to ma*******@postg resql.org

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
(send "unregister YourEmailAddres sHere" to ma*******@postg resql.org)

[Chris Webster]

postmaster (trhough postgres.conf)? If you haven't done any of these then I
wouldn't be surprised if the db was slow - i think the default install of
most linux distros leaves you with 32mb shared memory which makes your 700mb
of RAM useless. As far as 60 fields are concerned I doubt that would be a
problem although I've never used a table with more than 20 - anybody out
there know if number of fields on a table can create performance issues?

I'm having performance issues also. High load averages on all
postmaster processes. I performed 2 tests:

1) lowered the number of fields/columns from 273 to 60. No affect.

2) changed from adding a new record/row once per second to every other
second. Load average dropped 30-40%

I plan on trying to up the shared memory from 32Meg to 256Meg today.

--Chris
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to ma*******@postg resql.org so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly