Create index on EXISTS condition
Create index on EXISTS condition
My table structure:
table_a(id, company_id, approval_status, is_locked)
table_b(tba_id, status)
My Query:
SELECT COUNT(id) filter (WHERE approval_status = 2
AND is_locked = true AND EXISTS
(SELECT 1 from table_b WHERE table_b.tba_id = table_a.id
AND table_b.status = 2)
FROM table_a
GROUP BY company_id
I currently have the following index, but the performance is still slow:
CREATE INDEX multiple_filter_index ON table_a (approval_status, is_locked)
Can the performance of this query be improved by adding better indexes?
Here is the Query plan:
HashAggregate (cost=463013.07..463013.10 rows=2 width=11) (actual time=47632.476..47632.476 rows=2 loops=1)
Group Key: table_a.company_id
-> Seq Scan on table_a (cost=0.00..3064.62 rows=100062 width=11) (actual time=0.003..23.326 rows=100062 loops=1)
SubPlan 1
-> Seq Scan on table_b (cost=0.00..477.27 rows=104 width=0) (actual time=1.430..1.430 rows=0 loops=33144)
Filter: ((tba_id = table_a.id) AND (status = 2))
Rows Removed by Filter: 17411
SubPlan 2
-> Seq Scan on table_b table_b_1 (cost=0.00..433.73 rows=5820 width=4) (never executed)
Filter: (status = 2)
Planning time: 0.902 ms
Execution time: 47632.565 ms
EXISTS
Can you give me more details? Here is the part in the explain plan take most time: HashAggregate (cost=463013.07..463013.09 rows=2 width=11)
– Tran Hung
Sep 14 '18 at 4:34
You should run
EXPLAIN ANALYZE and include the plan in your question, assuming it would fit reasonably well.– Tim Biegeleisen
Sep 14 '18 at 4:35
EXPLAIN ANALYZE
2 Answers
2
Your current execution plan shows that Postgres is not using the index you defined at all. Rather, it is just doing two sequential scans of each table, which won't be particularly efficient if those tables are large.
First, AFAIK your query will be executed the same as this:
SELECT COUNT(id)
FROM table_a
WHERE
approval_status = 2 AND
is_locked = true AND
EXISTS (SELECT 1 from table_b WHERE table_b.tba_id = table_a.id AND table_b.status = 2)
GROUP BY company_id;
That is to say, the Postgres filter will really just behave the same as if that logic were in a formal WHERE clause.
WHERE
I would suggest creating an index on each of the two tables:
CREATE INDEX table_a_idx ON table_a (approval_status, is_locked, company_id);
CREATE INDEX table_b_idx ON table_b (status, tba_id);
The reasoning for the table_a_idx index is that we want to eliminate as many records as possible using the approval_status and is_locked filters. I also included the company_id in this index, to cover the GROUP BY column, hopefully avoiding the need to do an additional disk read after traversing the index.
table_a_idx
approval_status
is_locked
company_id
GROUP BY
The table_b_idx exists to speed up the EXISTS clause of your query.
table_b_idx
EXISTS
I would also recommend that you use COUNT(*) instead of COUNT(id).
COUNT(*)
COUNT(id)
It works perfectly. Thank you!!
– Tran Hung
Sep 14 '18 at 5:25
Try moving some filtering logic into a join
SELECT
company_id
, COUNT(CASE
WHEN approval_status = 2 AND
is_locked = TRUE AND
b.tba_id IS NOT NULL
THEN id
END)
FROM table_a
LEFT JOIN (
SELECT DISTINCT tba_id
FROM table_b
) b on b.tba_id = table_a.id
GROUP BY
company_id
Thank you for your answer but this query is 3x slower than my original.
– Tran Hung
Sep 14 '18 at 4:45
ok, so a lateral join was unhelpful - sorry. I've amended my answer but your best bet is to provide the explain plan as requested above.
– Used_By_Already
Sep 14 '18 at 4:54
Why would you expect a left join to be more efficient than an exists clause which uses the same logic?
– Tim Biegeleisen
Sep 14 '18 at 5:00
Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!
But avoid …
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
By clicking "Post Your Answer", you acknowledge that you have read our updated terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy, and that your continued use of the website is subject to these policies.
You may try modifying your index by adding columns which appear in the
EXISTSclause, which is really a subquery. You should look at the explain plan to see where the bottleneck might be exactly.– Tim Biegeleisen
Sep 14 '18 at 4:17