By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
464,482 Members | 1,158 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 464,482 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Inner join question

P: n/a
Greetings all,

I am trying to do what should be a simple join but the tables are large
and it is taking a long, long time. I have the feeling that I have
stuffed up something in the syntax.

Here is what I have:

telemetry=> select (tq1.timestamp = tq2.timestamp) as timestamp,
tq1.value as q1, tq2.value as q2 from cal_quat_1 tq1 inner join
cal_quat_2 as tq2 using (timestamp) where timestamp > '2004-01-12
09:47:56.0000 +0' and timestamp < '2004-01-12 09:50:44.7187 +0' order
by timestamp;

telemetry=> \d cal_quat_1
Table "cal_quat_1"
Column | Type | Modifiers
-----------+--------------------------+-----------
timestamp | timestamp with time zone |
value | double precision |

telemetry=> \d cal_quat_2
Table "cal_quat_2"
Column | Type | Modifiers
-----------+--------------------------+-----------
timestamp | timestamp with time zone |
value | double precision |

My understanding of an inner join is that the query above will restrict
to finding tq1.timestamp, tq1.value and then move onto t12.value to
search the subset. I have tried this with and without the '=' sign and
it isn't clear if it is making any difference at all (the timestamps
are identical in the range of interest). I have not allowed the query
to finish as it seems to take more than 10 minutes. Both timestamps
are indexed and I expect about 150 rows to be returned. At the end of
the day, I have four identical tables of quaternions (timestamp, value)
and I need to extract them all for a range of timestamps.

Cheers,
Randall
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to ma*******@postgresql.org

Nov 22 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
5 Replies

P: n/a
Randall Skelton wrote:
Greetings all,

I am trying to do what should be a simple join but the tables are
large and it is taking a long, long time. I have the feeling that I
have stuffed up something in the syntax.

Here is what I have:

telemetry=> select (tq1.timestamp = tq2.timestamp) as timestamp,
tq1.value as q1, tq2.value as q2 from cal_quat_1 tq1 inner join
cal_quat_2 as tq2 using (timestamp) where timestamp > '2004-01-12
09:47:56.0000 +0' and timestamp < '2004-01-12 09:50:44.7187 +0' order
by timestamp;

telemetry=> \d cal_quat_1
Table "cal_quat_1"
Column | Type | Modifiers
-----------+--------------------------+-----------
timestamp | timestamp with time zone |
value | double precision |

telemetry=> \d cal_quat_2
Table "cal_quat_2"
Column | Type | Modifiers
-----------+--------------------------+-----------
timestamp | timestamp with time zone |
value | double precision |

My understanding of an inner join is that the query above will
restrict to finding tq1.timestamp, tq1.value and then move onto
t12.value to search the subset. I have tried this with and without
the '=' sign and it isn't clear if it is making any difference at all
(the timestamps are identical in the range of interest). I have not
allowed the query to finish as it seems to take more than 10 minutes.
Both timestamps are indexed and I expect about 150 rows to be
returned. At the end of the day, I have four identical tables of
quaternions (timestamp, value) and I need to extract them all for a
range of timestamps.

Cheers,
Randall
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to ma*******@postgresql.org


We need more information to be able to help further. Can you supply:

1. Total number of rows in each table.
2. Results from "explain analyze <your query>"
3. key configuration values from postgresql.conf
4. Basic hardware config. (CPU type and number, Total RAM, HDD type,
size and speed)

But in the mean time can you try the following query instead.

select (tq1.timestamp = tq2.timestamp) as timestamp, tq1.value as q1,
tq2.value as q2 from cal_quat_1 tq1, cal_quat_2 as tq2 WHERE
tq1.timestamp=tq2.timestamp AND tq1.timestamp BETWEEN '2004-01-12
09:47:56.0000 +0'::timestamp AND '2004-01-12 09:50:44.7187
+0'::timestamp order by tq1.timestamp;

As far as I know, and someone please correct me, this allows the planner
the most flexibility when figuring out the optimum plan.
Thanks

Nick

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings

Nov 22 '05 #2

P: n/a
Hi,
try this on psql console:
explain analyze select tq1.*, tq2.* from
cal_quat_1 tq1, cal_quat_2 tq2
where tq1.timestamp = tq2.timestamp
and tq1.timestamp > '2004-01-12 09:47:56.0000 +0'::timestamp with time zone
and tq1.timestamp < '2004-01-12 09:50:44.7187 +0'::timestamp with time zone
order by tq1.timestamp;
.... and examine generated query plan (or post it)
regards, pajout
P.S.
And what about vacuum full analyze ? :)

Randall Skelton wrote:
Greetings all,

I am trying to do what should be a simple join but the tables are
large and it is taking a long, long time. I have the feeling that I
have stuffed up something in the syntax.

Here is what I have:

telemetry=> select (tq1.timestamp = tq2.timestamp) as timestamp,
tq1.value as q1, tq2.value as q2 from cal_quat_1 tq1 inner join
cal_quat_2 as tq2 using (timestamp) where timestamp > '2004-01-12
09:47:56.0000 +0' and timestamp < '2004-01-12 09:50:44.7187 +0' order
by timestamp;

telemetry=> \d cal_quat_1
Table "cal_quat_1"
Column | Type | Modifiers
-----------+--------------------------+-----------
timestamp | timestamp with time zone |
value | double precision |

telemetry=> \d cal_quat_2
Table "cal_quat_2"
Column | Type | Modifiers
-----------+--------------------------+-----------
timestamp | timestamp with time zone |
value | double precision |

My understanding of an inner join is that the query above will
restrict to finding tq1.timestamp, tq1.value and then move onto
t12.value to search the subset. I have tried this with and without
the '=' sign and it isn't clear if it is making any difference at all
(the timestamps are identical in the range of interest). I have not
allowed the query to finish as it seems to take more than 10 minutes.
Both timestamps are indexed and I expect about 150 rows to be
returned. At the end of the day, I have four identical tables of
quaternions (timestamp, value) and I need to extract them all for a
range of timestamps.

Cheers,
Randall
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to ma*******@postgresql.org

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

Nov 22 '05 #3

P: n/a
The main problem was that there wasn't an index on cal_qat_1. The
other indexes were fine so I don't know what happened to the first
one...

Nevertheless, it still takes longer than I would like. As requested:

telemetry=> explain analyze select tq1.*, tq2.* from
telemetry-> cal_quat_1 tq1, cal_quat_2 tq2
telemetry-> where tq1.timestamp = tq2.timestamp
telemetry-> and tq1.timestamp > '2004-01-12 09:47:56.0000
+0'::timestamp with time zone
telemetry-> and tq1.timestamp < '2004-01-12 09:50:44.7187
+0'::timestamp with time zone
telemetry-> order by tq1.timestamp;
NOTICE: QUERY PLAN:

Merge Join (cost=517417.89..2795472.80 rows=177664640 width=32)
(actual time=64878.04..64936.41 rows=142 loops=1)
-> Index Scan using cal_quat_1_timestamp on cal_quat_1 tq1
(cost=0.00..50549.03 rows=13329 width=16) (actual time=73.29..129.66
rows=142 loops=1)
-> Sort (cost=517417.89..517417.89 rows=2665818 width=16) (actual
time=62310.53..63727.33 rows=1020155 loops=1)
-> Seq Scan on cal_quat_2 tq2 (cost=0.00..43638.18
rows=2665818 width=16) (actual time=14.12..13462.19 rows=2665818
loops=1)
Total runtime: 65424.79 msec

Each table currently has 2665818 rows but grows by 86400/day. With
regards to hardware, the machine is a Sunfire 3600 (4 x 750MHz, 4GB
RAM, DB is on on a fiber channel disk array).

We are using 7.2.1.

Cheers,
Randall

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

Nov 22 '05 #4

P: n/a
On Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 01:23:34PM -0500, Randall Skelton wrote:
The main problem was that there wasn't an index on cal_qat_1. The
other indexes were fine so I don't know what happened to the first
one...
How about an index on cal_quat_2.timestamp?

Hope this helps,

--
Martijn van Oosterhout <kl*****@svana.org> http://svana.org/kleptog/ If the Catholic church can survive the printing press, science fiction
will certainly weather the advent of bookwarez.
http://craphound.com/ebooksneitherenorbooks.txt - Cory Doctorow


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQFANRa1Y5Twig3Ge+YRApOeAJ9Up9cKE+9C30V/FGaPYQZ4D3bQIQCgmJh4
P4n0fkezMSr7f/pCLO+p43g=
=i7sj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Nov 22 '05 #5

P: n/a
Randall Skelton <sk*****@brutus.uwaterloo.ca> writes:
Nevertheless, it still takes longer than I would like. As requested: Merge Join (cost=517417.89..2795472.80 rows=177664640 width=32)
(actual time=64878.04..64936.41 rows=142 loops=1)
-> Index Scan using cal_quat_1_timestamp on cal_quat_1 tq1
(cost=0.00..50549.03 rows=13329 width=16) (actual time=73.29..129.66
rows=142 loops=1)
-> Sort (cost=517417.89..517417.89 rows=2665818 width=16) (actual
time=62310.53..63727.33 rows=1020155 loops=1)
-> Seq Scan on cal_quat_2 tq2 (cost=0.00..43638.18
rows=2665818 width=16) (actual time=14.12..13462.19 rows=2665818
loops=1)
Total runtime: 65424.79 msec


I think the problem is the gross misestimation of the number of rows
involved --- first within the timestamp interval (13329 vs actual 142)
and then for the join result (177664640 is just silly). With more
accurate estimates you would probably have gotten the double indexscan
plan that you really want.

The estimates look remarkably default-ish, however --- if I'm doing the
math correctly, the selectivity is being estimated as 0.005 at each
step, which just happens to be the default estimate in the absence of
any statistics. Have you ANALYZEd these tables lately? If you have,
try increasing the statistics target for the timestamp rows (see ALTER
TABLE) and analyze again.

regards, tom lane

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend

Nov 22 '05 #6

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.