473,491 Members | 2,159 Online
Bytes | Software Development & Data Engineering Community
Create Post

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

EXPLAIN ANALYZE total runtime != walltime

I have been using the EXPLAIN ANALYZE command to debug some performance
bottlenecks in my database. In doing so, I have found an oddity (to me
anyway). The "19ms" total runtime reported below actually takes 25
seconds on my computer (no other CPU intensive processes running). Is
this normal for EXPLAIN ANALYZE to report a total runtime so vastly
different from wall clock time?

During the "explain ANALYZE delete from msgid;" the CPU is pegged at
100% for the postmaster process, and the HD light only flashes
intermittently, so I do not think it is HD I/O.

I tossed in a "EXPLAIN ANALYZE VERBOSE" at the end of this email, in
case that helps anyone.

Thanks for any help!
-Jon

translator=> SELECT version();
version
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PostgreSQL 7.4.2 on i386-redhat-linux-gnu, compiled by GCC
i386-redhat-linux-gcc (GCC) 3.3.3 20040216 (Red Hat Linux 3.3.3-2.1)
(1 row)

translator=> VACUUM ANALYZE ;
WARNING: skipping "pg_shadow" --- only table or database owner can
vacuum it
WARNING: skipping "pg_database" --- only table or database owner can
vacuum it
WARNING: skipping "pg_group" --- only table or database owner can vacuum it
VACUUM
translator=> BEGIN ;
BEGIN
translator=> explain ANALYZE delete from msgid;
QUERY PLAN

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seq Scan on msgid (cost=0.00..23.81 rows=981 width=6) (actual
time=0.029..10.151 rows=981 loops=1)
Total runtime: 19.755 ms
(2 rows)
translator=> \d msgid
Table "public.msgid"
Column | Type | Modifiers

-----------+---------------+-------------------------------------------------------
id | integer | not null default
nextval('public.msgid_id_seq'::text)
projectid | integer | not null
msgid | text | not null
msgidmd5 | character(32) | not null
Indexes:
"msgid_pkey" primary key, btree (id)
Foreign-key constraints:
"$1" FOREIGN KEY (projectid) REFERENCES projects(id) ON DELETE CASCADE
translator=> rollback;
ROLLBACK
translator=> explain ANALYZE VERBOSE delete from msgid;
QUERY PLAN

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
{SEQSCAN
:startup_cost 0.00
:total_cost 23.81
:plan_rows 981
:plan_width 6
:targetlist (
{TARGETENTRY
:resdom
{RESDOM
:resno 1
:restype 27
:restypmod -1
:resname ctid
:ressortgroupref 0
:resorigtbl 0
:resorigcol 0
:resjunk true
}
:expr
{VAR
:varno 1
:varattno -1
:vartype 27
:vartypmod -1
:varlevelsup 0
:varnoold 1
:varoattno -1
}
}
)

:qual <>
:lefttree <>
:righttree <>
:initPlan <>
:extParam ()

:allParam ()

:nParamExec 0
:scanrelid 1
}

Seq Scan on msgid (cost=0.00..23.81 rows=981 width=6) (actual
time=0.031..6.444 rows=981 loops=1)
Total runtime: 35.760 ms
(46 rows)
--
-**-*-*---*-*---*-*---*-----*-*-----*---*-*---*-----*-----*-*-----*---
Jon Lapham <la****@jandr.org> Rio de Janeiro, Brasil
Personal: http://www.jandr.org/
***-*--*----*-------*------------*--------------------*---------------
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

Nov 23 '05 #1
5 3581

On Wed, 25 Aug 2004, Jon Lapham wrote:
I have been using the EXPLAIN ANALYZE command to debug some performance
bottlenecks in my database. In doing so, I have found an oddity (to me
anyway). The "19ms" total runtime reported below actually takes 25
seconds on my computer (no other CPU intensive processes running). Is
this normal for EXPLAIN ANALYZE to report a total runtime so vastly
different from wall clock time?

During the "explain ANALYZE delete from msgid;" the CPU is pegged at
100% for the postmaster process, and the HD light only flashes
intermittently, so I do not think it is HD I/O.

I tossed in a "EXPLAIN ANALYZE VERBOSE" at the end of this email, in
case that helps anyone.


I think EXPLAIN ANALYZE time doesn't include after trigger time (for
example for foreign keys). Do any tables reference this one?

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

Nov 23 '05 #2
Jon Lapham <la****@jandr.org> writes:
I have been using the EXPLAIN ANALYZE command to debug some performance
bottlenecks in my database. In doing so, I have found an oddity (to me
anyway). The "19ms" total runtime reported below actually takes 25
seconds on my computer (no other CPU intensive processes running).


I think that the foreign-key-checking triggers that are fired by the
DELETE will execute at end of statement, which is outside the time
window measured and reported by EXPLAIN ANALYZE. Better look at your FK
setup. The usual culprit for slow DELETE is an unindexed referencing
column in another table, but it could also be that the referencing
column is not the same datatype as the key column.

regards, tom lane

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

Nov 23 '05 #3
Tom Lane wrote:
Jon Lapham <la****@jandr.org> writes:
I have been using the EXPLAIN ANALYZE command to debug some performance
bottlenecks in my database. In doing so, I have found an oddity (to me
anyway). The "19ms" total runtime reported below actually takes 25
seconds on my computer (no other CPU intensive processes running).

I think that the foreign-key-checking triggers that are fired by the
DELETE will execute at end of statement, which is outside the time
window measured and reported by EXPLAIN ANALYZE. Better look at your FK
setup. The usual culprit for slow DELETE is an unindexed referencing
column in another table, but it could also be that the referencing
column is not the same datatype as the key column.


Yup, you are right, I have another table that has a FK reference to the
table I am deleting. I'll look into improving performance by indexing
the referencing column.

Is there some way to get at something equvalent to UNIX's "time" command
for benchmarking purposes?

Was there something in the output of EXPLAIN ANALYZE VERBOSE that let
you to conclude that the timing difference was due to a FK referencing
this table?

I want to learn how you guys figure this stuff out...

Should something be mentioned in the docs about foreign-key-checking
triggers not being included in the total runtime of EXPLAIN ANALYZE? I
just checked (the 7.4.2 docs, anyway) and there is no mention of this.

Thanks for the help!
Jon

--
-**-*-*---*-*---*-*---*-----*-*-----*---*-*---*-----*-----*-*-----*---
Jon Lapham <la****@jandr.org> Rio de Janeiro, Brasil
Personal: http://www.jandr.org/
***-*--*----*-------*------------*--------------------*---------------
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?

http://archives.postgresql.org

Nov 23 '05 #4
Stephan Szabo wrote:
On Wed, 25 Aug 2004, Jon Lapham wrote:

I have been using the EXPLAIN ANALYZE command to debug some performance
bottlenecks in my database. In doing so, I have found an oddity (to me
anyway). The "19ms" total runtime reported below actually takes 25
seconds on my computer (no other CPU intensive processes running). Is
this normal for EXPLAIN ANALYZE to report a total runtime so vastly
different from wall clock time?

During the "explain ANALYZE delete from msgid;" the CPU is pegged at
100% for the postmaster process, and the HD light only flashes
intermittently, so I do not think it is HD I/O.

I tossed in a "EXPLAIN ANALYZE VERBOSE" at the end of this email, in
case that helps anyone.

I think EXPLAIN ANALYZE time doesn't include after trigger time (for
example for foreign keys). Do any tables reference this one?


Yup, I have a referencing table, that is indeed the performance problem.
I'm just surprised that the "total runtime" is not the.. well... total
runtime. :)

Thanks,
Jon

--
-**-*-*---*-*---*-*---*-----*-*-----*---*-*---*-----*-----*-*-----*---
Jon Lapham <la****@jandr.org> Rio de Janeiro, Brasil
Personal: http://www.jandr.org/
***-*--*----*-------*------------*--------------------*---------------
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

Nov 23 '05 #5
Jon Lapham <la****@jandr.org> writes:
Was there something in the output of EXPLAIN ANALYZE VERBOSE that let
you to conclude that the timing difference was due to a FK referencing
this table?
No, just general knowledge of what sorts of things could possibly happen
outside the execution of the "statement proper". EXPLAIN ANALYZE's
report of total runtime is honest as far as it goes, but it doesn't
include transaction startup and shutdown because those happen before and
after the EXPLAIN code gets to run. Normally those are quick enough,
but end-of-statement triggers are a common reason for shutdown not to be
quick. So it was an educated guess...
Should something be mentioned in the docs about foreign-key-checking
triggers not being included in the total runtime of EXPLAIN ANALYZE?


Feel free to send in a docs patch with suggested wording. I think we
already do mention that planning time isn't accounted for (that part
happens before EXPLAIN starts...) and somewhere right around there would
likely be a good spot.

regards, tom lane

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

Nov 23 '05 #6

This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion.

Similar topics

0
1065
by: developer | last post by:
I have the following query that takes anywhere from 1 to 3 seconds to run. I would expect it to run in less than 1/2 a second (and I really need it to do so). I've added the appropriate indices...
6
3459
by: Holger Marzen | last post by:
Hi all, the docs are not clear for me. If I want (in version 7.1.x, 7.2.x) to help the analyzer AND free unused space do I have to do a vacuum vacuum analyze or is a
10
2124
by: Greg Stark | last post by:
This query is odd, it seems to be taking over a second according to my log_duration logs and according to psql's \timing numbers. However explain analyze says it's running in about a third of a...
3
2207
by: Joseph Shraibman | last post by:
Trying this: VACUUM VERBOSE ANALYZE; on a 7.4.1 database only does a vacuum, not the analyze. I've tried this on two seperate databases. Is this a known bug? I haven't seen anything about...
2
1888
by: Dan Sugalski | last post by:
Is there any way to convince explain to go do its thing when given a query with placeholders in it? I'm trying to do some performance checking of some of the queries built into a system I'm...
16
2180
by: Ed L. | last post by:
I'm getting a slew of these repeatable errors when running ANALYZE and/or VACUUM ANALYZE (from an autovacuum process) against a 7.3.4 cluster on HP-UX B.11.00: 2004-09-29 18:14:53.621 ERROR:...
5
2704
by: tony | last post by:
I'm using PHP 5 on Win-98 command line (ie no web server involved) I'm processing a large csv file and when I loop through it I can process around 275 records per second. However at around...
4
8451
by: superflit | last post by:
Hi All, I am reading a log file, and wondering what is the best way to read and analize this. I am think in two options: 1- Read the data and put all variables in a list 2- Read the data and...
2
8888
by: anto.anish | last post by:
Hi - I have been using clock() for calculating CPU time and time() for calculating Wall time. However, since time() does not provided milli/ microsecond accurancy, i started using...
0
7115
marktang
by: marktang | last post by:
ONU (Optical Network Unit) is one of the key components for providing high-speed Internet services. Its primary function is to act as an endpoint device located at the user's premises. However,...
0
6978
by: Hystou | last post by:
Most computers default to English, but sometimes we require a different language, especially when relocating. Forgot to request a specific language before your computer shipped? No problem! You can...
0
7154
Oralloy
by: Oralloy | last post by:
Hello folks, I am unable to find appropriate documentation on the type promotion of bit-fields when using the generalised comparison operator "<=>". The problem is that using the GNU compilers,...
0
7360
tracyyun
by: tracyyun | last post by:
Dear forum friends, With the development of smart home technology, a variety of wireless communication protocols have appeared on the market, such as Zigbee, Z-Wave, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, etc. Each...
1
4881
isladogs
by: isladogs | last post by:
The next Access Europe User Group meeting will be on Wednesday 1 May 2024 starting at 18:00 UK time (6PM UTC+1) and finishing by 19:30 (7.30PM). In this session, we are pleased to welcome a new...
0
3076
by: adsilva | last post by:
A Windows Forms form does not have the event Unload, like VB6. What one acts like?
0
1392
by: 6302768590 | last post by:
Hai team i want code for transfer the data from one system to another through IP address by using C# our system has to for every 5mins then we have to update the data what the data is updated ...
1
633
muto222
by: muto222 | last post by:
How can i add a mobile payment intergratation into php mysql website.
0
280
bsmnconsultancy
by: bsmnconsultancy | last post by:
In today's digital era, a well-designed website is crucial for businesses looking to succeed. Whether you're a small business owner or a large corporation in Toronto, having a strong online presence...

By using Bytes.com and it's services, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

To disable or enable advertisements and analytics tracking please visit the manage ads & tracking page.