Re: Left Outer Join much faster than non-outer Join?

From: Ron Mayer <rm_pg(at)cheapcomplexdevices(dot)com>
To: Ron Mayer <rm_pg(at)cheapcomplexdevices(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Left Outer Join much faster than non-outer Join?
Date: 2005-03-31 08:15:55
Message-ID: 424BB1BB.90304@cheapcomplexdevices.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

Ron Mayer wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> rm_pg(at)cheapcomplexdevices(dot)com writes:
>>> select *
>>> from streetname_lookup as sl
>>> join city_lookup as cl on (true)
>>> left outer join tlid_smaller as ts on (sl.geo_streetname_id =
>>> ts.geo_streetname_id and cl.geo_city_id=ts.geo_city_id)
>>> where str_name='alamo' and city='san antonio' and state='TX'
>>> ;
>> That's a fairly odd query;
>
>
> I think it's a very common type of query in data warehousing.
>
> It's reasonably typical of a traditional star schema where
> "streetname_lookup" and "city_lookup" are dimension tables
> and "tlid_smaller" is the central fact table.

Although looking again I must admit the query was
written unconventionally. Perhaps those queries are
remnants dating back to a version when you could
force join orders this way?

Perhaps a more common way of writing it would have been:

select * from tlid_smaller
where geo_streetname_id in (select geo_streetname_id from streetname_lookup where str_name='$str_name')
and geo_city_id in (select geo_city_id from city_lookup where city='$city' and state='$state');

However this query also fails to use the multi-column
index on (geo_streetname_id,geo_city_id). Explain
analyze shown below.

In cases where I can be sure only one result will come
from each of the lookup queries I guess I can do this:

select * from tlid_smaller
where geo_streetname_id = (select geo_streetname_id from streetname_lookup where str_name='$str_name')
and geo_city_id = (select geo_city_id from city_lookup where city='$city' and state='$state');

which has the nicest plan of them all (explain analyze
also shown below).

> With the tables I have (shown below), how else could one
> efficiently fetch the data for "Main St" "San Francisco"?

I guess I just answered that question myself. Where possible,
I'll write my queries this way.

Thanks,
Ron

fli=# fli=# explain analyze select * from tlid_smaller
where geo_streetname_id in (select geo_streetname_id from streetname_lookup where str_name='alamo')
and geo_city_id in (select geo_city_id from city_lookup where city='san antonio' and state='TX');
fli-# fli-# QUERY PLAN
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hash IN Join (cost=9.03..29209.16 rows=1 width=32) (actual time=76.576..96.605 rows=78 loops=1)
Hash Cond: ("outer".geo_city_id = "inner".geo_city_id)
-> Nested Loop (cost=3.02..29202.88 rows=52 width=32) (actual time=65.877..91.789 rows=4151 loops=1)
-> HashAggregate (cost=3.02..3.02 rows=1 width=4) (actual time=0.039..0.042 rows=1 loops=1)
-> Index Scan using streetname_lookup__str_name on streetname_lookup (cost=0.00..3.01 rows=1 width=4) (actual time=0.025..0.028 rows=1 loops=1)
Index Cond: (str_name = 'alamo'::text)
-> Index Scan using tlid_smaller__street_zipint on tlid_smaller (cost=0.00..28994.70 rows=16413 width=32) (actual time=65.820..81.309 rows=4151 loops=1)
Index Cond: (tlid_smaller.geo_streetname_id = "outer".geo_streetname_id)
-> Hash (cost=6.01..6.01 rows=1 width=4) (actual time=0.054..0.054 rows=0 loops=1)
-> Index Scan using city_lookup__name on city_lookup (cost=0.00..6.01 rows=1 width=4) (actual time=0.039..0.041 rows=1 loops=1)
Index Cond: ((city = 'san antonio'::text) AND (state = 'TX'::text))
Total runtime: 97.577 ms
(12 rows)

fli=#

fli=# explain analyze select * from tlid_smaller
where geo_streetname_id = (select geo_streetname_id from streetname_lookup where str_name='alamo')
and geo_city_id = (select geo_city_id from city_lookup where city='san antonio' and state='TX');

fli-# fli-# QUERY PLAN
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Index Scan using tlid_smaller__street_city on tlid_smaller (cost=9.02..16.88 rows=3 width=32) (actual time=0.115..0.255 rows=78 loops=1)
Index Cond: ((geo_streetname_id = $0) AND (geo_city_id = $1))
InitPlan
-> Index Scan using streetname_lookup__str_name on streetname_lookup (cost=0.00..3.01 rows=1 width=4) (actual time=0.044..0.047 rows=1 loops=1)
Index Cond: (str_name = 'alamo'::text)
-> Index Scan using city_lookup__name on city_lookup (cost=0.00..6.01 rows=1 width=4) (actual time=0.028..0.030 rows=1 loops=1)
Index Cond: ((city = 'san antonio'::text) AND (state = 'TX'::text))
Total runtime: 0.474 ms
(8 rows)

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Patrick Vedrines 2005-03-31 08:28:11 Re: Left Outer Join much faster than non-outer Join?
Previous Message Ron Mayer 2005-03-31 07:04:53 Re: Left Outer Join much faster than non-outer Join?