我目前有一个由于OR语句而导致的PostgreSQL查询缓慢。因此，显然没有使用索引。到目前为止，重写此查询失败。
I currently have a postgresql query that is slow because of an OR statement. It's apparently not using an index because of it. Rewriting this query failed so far.
查询：
EXPLAIN ANALYZE SELECT a0_.id AS id0 FROM advert a0_ INNER JOIN advertcategory a1_ ON a0_.advert_category_id = a1_.id WHERE a0_.advert_category_id IN ( 1136 ) OR a1_.parent_id IN ( 1136 ) ORDER BY a0_.created_date DESC LIMIT 15; QUERY PLAN ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Limit (cost=0.00..27542.49 rows=15 width=12) (actual time=1.658..50.809 rows=15 loops=1) -> Nested Loop (cost=0.00..1691109.07 rows=921 width=12) (actual time=1.657..50.790 rows=15 loops=1) -> Index Scan Backward using advert_created_date_idx on advert a0_ (cost=0.00..670300.17 rows=353804 width=16) (actual time=0.013..16.449 rows=12405 loops=1) -> Index Scan using advertcategory_pkey on advertcategory a1_ (cost=0.00..2.88 rows=1 width=8) (actual time=0.002..0.002 rows=0 loops=12405) Index Cond: (id = a0_.advert_category_id) Filter: ((a0_.advert_category_id = 1136) OR (parent_id = 1136)) Rows Removed by Filter: 1 Total runtime: 50.860 ms缓慢的原因：过滤器：（（（a0_.advert_category_id = 1136）OR（parent_id = 1136））
我尝试使用INNER JOIN代替WHERE语句：
I've tried using INNER JOIN instead of the WHERE statement:
EXPLAIN ANALYZE SELECT a0_.id AS id0 FROM advert a0_ INNER JOIN advertcategory a1_ ON a0_.advert_category_id = a1_.id AND ( a0_.advert_category_id IN ( 1136 ) OR a1_.parent_id IN ( 1136 ) ) ORDER BY a0_.created_date DESC LIMIT 15; QUERY PLAN -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Limit (cost=0.00..27542.49 rows=15 width=12) (actual time=4.667..139.955 rows=15 loops=1) -> Nested Loop (cost=0.00..1691109.07 rows=921 width=12) (actual time=4.666..139.932 rows=15 loops=1) -> Index Scan Backward using advert_created_date_idx on advert a0_ (cost=0.00..670300.17 rows=353804 width=16) (actual time=0.019..100.765 rows=12405 loops=1) -> Index Scan using advertcategory_pkey on advertcategory a1_ (cost=0.00..2.88 rows=1 width=8) (actual time=0.002..0.002 rows=0 loops=12405) Index Cond: (id = a0_.advert_category_id) Filter: ((a0_.advert_category_id = 1136) OR (parent_id = 1136)) Rows Removed by Filter: 1 Total runtime: 140.048 ms当我删除一个OR条件时，查询速度会加快。因此，我创建了一个UNION来查看结果。非常快！但是我不认为这是解决方案：
The query speeds up when I remove one of the OR criteria. So I've made a UNION to see the results. It's very fast! But I do not consider this as a solution:
EXPLAIN ANALYZE (SELECT a0_.id AS id0 FROM advert a0_ INNER JOIN advertcategory a1_ ON a0_.advert_category_id = a1_.id WHERE a0_.advert_category_id IN ( 1136 ) ORDER BY a0_.created_date DESC LIMIT 15) UNION (SELECT a0_.id AS id0 FROM advert a0_ INNER JOIN advertcategory a1_ ON a0_.advert_category_id = a1_.id WHERE a1_.parent_id IN ( 1136 ) ORDER BY a0_.created_date DESC LIMIT 15); QUERY PLAN --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- HashAggregate (cost=4125.70..4126.00 rows=30 width=12) (actual time=7.945..7.951 rows=15 loops=1) -> Append (cost=1120.82..4125.63 rows=30 width=12) (actual time=6.811..7.929 rows=15 loops=1) -> Subquery Scan on "*SELECT* 1" (cost=1120.82..1121.01 rows=15 width=12) (actual time=6.810..6.840 rows=15 loops=1) -> Limit (cost=1120.82..1120.86 rows=15 width=12) (actual time=6.809..6.825 rows=15 loops=1) -> Sort (cost=1120.82..1121.56 rows=295 width=12) (actual time=6.807..6.813 rows=15 loops=1) Sort Key: a0_.created_date Sort Method: top-N heapsort Memory: 25kB -> Nested Loop (cost=10.59..1113.59 rows=295 width=12) (actual time=1.151..6.639 rows=220 loops=1) -> Index Only Scan using advertcategory_pkey on advertcategory a1_ (cost=0.00..8.27 rows=1 width=4) (actual time=1.030..1.033 rows=1 loops=1) Index Cond: (id = 1136) Heap Fetches: 1 -> Bitmap Heap Scan on advert a0_ (cost=10.59..1102.37 rows=295 width=16) (actual time=0.099..5.287 rows=220 loops=1) Recheck Cond: (advert_category_id = 1136) -> Bitmap Index Scan on idx_54f1f40bd4436821 (cost=0.00..10.51 rows=295 width=0) (actual time=0.073..0.073 rows=220 loops=1) Index Cond: (advert_category_id = 1136) -> Subquery Scan on "*SELECT* 2" (cost=3004.43..3004.62 rows=15 width=12) (actual time=1.072..1.072 rows=0 loops=1) -> Limit (cost=3004.43..3004.47 rows=15 width=12) (actual time=1.071..1.071 rows=0 loops=1) -> Sort (cost=3004.43..3005.99 rows=626 width=12) (actual time=1.069..1.069 rows=0 loops=1) Sort Key: a0_.created_date Sort Method: quicksort Memory: 25kB -> Nested Loop (cost=22.91..2989.07 rows=626 width=12) (actual time=1.056..1.056 rows=0 loops=1) -> Index Scan using idx_d84ab8ea727aca70 on advertcategory a1_ (cost=0.00..8.27 rows=1 width=4) (actual time=1.054..1.054 rows=0 loops=1) Index Cond: (parent_id = 1136) -> Bitmap Heap Scan on advert a0_ (cost=22.91..2972.27 rows=853 width=16) (never executed) Recheck Cond: (advert_category_id = a1_.id) -> Bitmap Index Scan on idx_54f1f40bd4436821 (cost=0.00..22.70 rows=853 width=0) (never executed) Index Cond: (advert_category_id = a1_.id) Total runtime: 8.940 ms (28 rows)尝试反转IN语句：
EXPLAIN ANALYZE SELECT a0_.id AS id0 FROM advert a0_ INNER JOIN advertcategory a1_ ON a0_.advert_category_id = a1_.id WHERE 1136 IN ( a0_.advert_category_id, a1_.parent_id ) ORDER BY a0_.created_date DESC LIMIT 15; QUERY PLAN ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Limit (cost=0.00..27542.49 rows=15 width=12) (actual time=1.848..62.461 rows=15 loops=1) -> Nested Loop (cost=0.00..1691109.07 rows=921 width=12) (actual time=1.847..62.441 rows=15 loops=1) -> Index Scan Backward using advert_created_date_idx on advert a0_ (cost=0.00..670300.17 rows=353804 width=16) (actual time=0.028..27.316 rows=12405 loops=1) -> Index Scan using advertcategory_pkey on advertcategory a1_ (cost=0.00..2.88 rows=1 width=8) (actual time=0.002..0.002 rows=0 loops=12405) Index Cond: (id = a0_.advert_category_id) Filter: ((1136 = a0_.advert_category_id) OR (1136 = parent_id)) Rows Removed by Filter: 1 Total runtime: 62.506 ms (8 rows)尝试使用EXISTS：
Tried using EXISTS:
EXPLAIN ANALYZE SELECT a0_.id AS id0 FROM advert a0_ INNER JOIN advertcategory a1_ ON a0_.advert_category_id = a1_.id WHERE EXISTS(SELECT test.id FROM advert test INNER JOIN advertcategory test_cat ON test_cat.id = test.advert_category_id WHERE test.id = a0_.id AND ( test.advert_category_id IN ( 1136 ) OR test_cat.parent_id IN ( 1136 ) )) ORDER BY a0_.created_date DESC LIMIT 15; QUERY PLAN --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Limit (cost=45538.18..45538.22 rows=15 width=12) (actual time=524.654..524.673 rows=15 loops=1) -> Sort (cost=45538.18..45540.48 rows=921 width=12) (actual time=524.651..524.658 rows=15 loops=1) Sort Key: a0_.created_date Sort Method: top-N heapsort Memory: 25kB -> Hash Join (cost=39803.59..45515.58 rows=921 width=12) (actual time=497.362..524.436 rows=220 loops=1) Hash Cond: (a0_.advert_category_id = a1_.id) -> Nested Loop (cost=39786.88..45486.21 rows=921 width=16) (actual time=496.748..523.501 rows=220 loops=1) -> HashAggregate (cost=39786.88..39796.09 rows=921 width=4) (actual time=496.705..496.872 rows=220 loops=1) -> Hash Join (cost=16.71..39784.58 rows=921 width=4) (actual time=1.210..496.294 rows=220 loops=1) Hash Cond: (test.advert_category_id = test_cat.id) Join Filter: ((test.advert_category_id = 1136) OR (test_cat.parent_id = 1136)) Rows Removed by Join Filter: 353584 -> Seq Scan on advert test (cost=0.00..33134.04 rows=353804 width=8) (actual time=0.002..177.953 rows=353804 loops=1) -> Hash (cost=9.65..9.65 rows=565 width=8) (actual time=0.622..0.622 rows=565 loops=1) Buckets: 1024 Batches: 1 Memory Usage: 22kB -> Seq Scan on advertcategory test_cat (cost=0.00..9.65 rows=565 width=8) (actual time=0.005..0.327 rows=565 loops=1) -> Index Scan using advert_pkey on advert a0_ (cost=0.00..6.17 rows=1 width=16) (actual time=0.117..0.118 rows=1 loops=220) Index Cond: (id = test.id) -> Hash (cost=9.65..9.65 rows=565 width=4) (actual time=0.604..0.604 rows=565 loops=1) Buckets: 1024 Batches: 1 Memory Usage: 20kB -> Seq Scan on advertcategory a1_ (cost=0.00..9.65 rows=565 width=4) (actual time=0.010..0.285 rows=565 loops=1) Total runtime: 524.797 ms广告表（向下细分）：
353804 rows Table "public.advert" Column | Type | Modifiers | Storage | Stats target | Description -----------------------------+--------------------------------+-----------------------------------------------------+----------+--------------+------------- id | integer | not null default nextval('advert_id_seq'::regclass) | plain | | advert_category_id | integer | not null | plain | | Indexes: "idx_54f1f40bd4436821" btree (advert_category_id) "advert_created_date_idx" btree (created_date) Foreign-key constraints: "fk_54f1f40bd4436821" FOREIGN KEY (advert_category_id) REFERENCES advertcategory(id) ON DELETE RESTRICT Has OIDs: no类别表（向下划分） ：
Category table (stripped down):
565 rows Table "public.advertcategory" Column | Type | Modifiers -----------+---------+------------------------------------------------------------- id | integer | not null default nextval('advertcategory_id_seq'::regclass) parent_id | integer | active | boolean | not null system | boolean | not null Indexes: "advertcategory_pkey" PRIMARY KEY, btree (id) "idx_d84ab8ea727aca70" btree (parent_id) Foreign-key constraints: "fk_d84ab8ea727aca70" FOREIGN KEY (parent_id) REFERENCES advertcategory(id) ON DELETE RESTRICT短服务器配置：
version -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PostgreSQL 9.2.4 on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, compiled by gcc (GCC) 4.4.7 20120313 (Red Hat 4.4.7-3), 64-bit name | current_setting | source ----------------------------+--------------------+---------------------- shared_buffers | 1800MB | configuration file work_mem | 4MB | configuration file如您所见，没有合适的解决方案可以提高速度。仅UNION解决方案可拆分OR语句，可提高性能。但是我不能使用它，因为此查询正在通过我的ORM框架以及许多其他过滤器选项使用。另外，如果我能做到这一点，为什么优化器不这样做？似乎是一个非常简单的优化。
As you can see, none of the proper solutions give speed improvement. Only the UNION solution to split the OR statement improves performance. But I can't use that because this query is being used through my ORM framework with alot of other filter options. Plus if I can do this, why doesn't the optimizer do it? It seems a really simple optimization.
对此有任何提示吗？
推荐答案此外，如果我能做到这一点，为什么优化器不这样做呢？它？ -因为在所有情况下，这样做不一定都是有效的（由于子查询中的聚集）或有趣的（由于更好的索引）。
"Plus if I can do this, why doesn't the optimizer do it?" -- Because there are all sorts of cases where it's not necessarily valid (due to aggregates in subqueries) or interesting (due to a better index) to do so.
戈登的答案给出了您可能获得的最佳查询计划，使用 union all 而不是 union 以避免排序（我认为类别永远不会是其父类别，从而消除了重复的可能性。）
The best query plan you'll possibly get is given in Gordon's answer, using union all instead of union to avoid the sort (I take it that a category is never its own parent, eliminating any possibility of dups).
否则，请注意，您的查询可以这样重写：
Otherwise, note that your query could be rewritten like so:
SELECT a0_.id AS id0 FROM advert a0_ INNER JOIN advertcategory a1_ ON a0_.advert_category_id = a1_.id WHERE a1_.id IN ( 1136 ) OR a1_.parent_id IN ( 1136 ) ORDER BY a0_.created_date DESC LIMIT 15;换句话说，您是根据一张表中的条件进行过滤，并基于另一个。您编写它的方式使您无法使用良好的索引，因为计划者无法识别筛选条件全部来自同一张表，因此它将像您当前正在使用的筛选器嵌套在created_date之上。请注意，这不是一个糟糕的计划……实际上，例如1136并不是一个非常有选择性的条件。
In other words you're filtering based on a criteria from one table, and sort/limit based on another. The way you wrote it precludes you from being able to use a good index, because the planner isn't recognizing that the filter criteria is all from the same table, so it'll nestloop over created_date with a filter like you're currently doing. It's not a bad plan, mind you... It's actually the right thing to do if e.g. 1136 isn't very selective a criteria.
通过明确指出第二个表是一个有趣的表，当类别归类时，您可能会进行位图堆扫描如果您已经在 advertcategory（id）（如果是主键的话，已经拥有）和 advertcategory（parent_id）上建立索引，则具有足够的选择性（您目前可能没有）。不过，不要指望太多-据我所知，PG不会收集相关的列信息。
By making it explicit that the second table is the one of interest, you may end up with a bitmap heap scan when the category is selective enough, if you've indexes on advertcategory (id) (which you already have if it's the primary key) and on advertcategory (parent_id) (which you probably do not have at the moment). Don't count too much on it, though -- PG doesn't collect correlated column information insofar as I'm aware.
另一种可能是维护一个数组直接使用广告中的汇总类别（使用触发器），并在其上使用GIST索引：
Another possibility might be to maintain an array with the aggregate categories (using triggers) in advert directly, and to use a GIST index on it:
SELECT a0_.id AS id0 FROM advert a0_ WHERE ARRAY[1136, 1137] && a0_.category_ids -- 1136 OR 1137; use <@ for AND ORDER BY a0_.created_date DESC LIMIT 15;从技术上讲是多余的，但是可以很好地优化这种查询（例如，对嵌套类别的过滤器）产生复杂的加入条件的树）...当PG决定使用它时，您将最终对适用的广告进行前n位排序。 （在较早的PG版本中，由于缺乏统计信息，所以&&的选择性是任意的;我含糊地记得读过一个变更日志，其中9.1、9.2或9.3改进了事情，大概是通过使用类似于tsvector内容统计信息收集器使用的代码进行的。无论如何，一定要确保使用最新的PG版本，并确保不要使用不会导致 gin / gist 索引的运算符重写该查询。可以使用。）
It's technically redundant, but it works well to optimize this sort of query (i.e. filters over a nested category tree that yield complicated join criterias)... When PG decides to use it, you'll end up top-n sorting applicable ads. (In older PG versions, the selectivity of && was arbitrary from lack of stats; I vaguely remember reading a changelog whereby 9.1, 9.2 or 9.3 improved things, presumably by using code similar to that used by the tsvector content statistics collector for generic array types. At any rate, be sure to use the latest PG version, and be sure to not rewrite that query using operators that the gin/gist index won't be able to use.)
更多推荐
PostgreSQL中的慢OR语句
发布评论