Postgres2015全国用户大会将于11月20至21日在北京丽亭华苑酒店召开。本次大会嘉宾阵容强大，国内顶级PostgreSQL数据库专家将悉数到场，并特邀欧洲、俄罗斯、日本、美国等国家和地区的数据库方面专家助阵:
- Postgres-XC项目的发起人铃木市一(SUZUKI Koichi)
- Postgres-XL的项目发起人Mason Sharp
- pgpool的作者石井达夫(Tatsuo Ishii)
- PG-Strom的作者海外浩平(Kaigai Kohei)
- Greenplum研发总监姚延栋
- 周正中(德哥), PostgreSQL中国用户会创始人之一
- 汪洋，平安科技数据库技术部经理
- ……
|
 |
今天在讲解PostgreSQL 性能优化的 成本因子校准时发现一个奇异的问题, 索引扫描带来了巨大的heap page scan数目.
视频如下 :
如果数据库的单个数据块很大的话, 这种情况带来的负面影响也将被放大. 例如32k的block_size显然比8k的block_size扫描开销更大.
本文将讲解一下索引扫描引发的heap page scan放大的原因, 以及告诫大家注意这样的事情发生.
测试环境的成本因子如下 :
shared_buffers = 8192MB # min 128kB#seq_page_cost = 1.0 # measured on an arbitrary scalerandom_page_cost = 1.0 # same scale as above#cpu_tuple_cost = 0.01 # same scale as abovecpu_index_tuple_cost = 0.005 # same scale as above#cpu_operator_cost = 0.0025 # same scale as aboveeffective_cache_size = 96GB
我们先创建一个测试表, 插入一些测试数据, 创建一个索引 :
digoal=> create table test_indexscan(id int, info text);CREATE TABLEdigoal=> insert into test_indexscan select generate_series(1,5000000),md5(random()::text);INSERT 0 5000000digoal=> create index idx_test_indexscan_id on test_indexscan (id);CREATE INDEX
我们查看这个表和索引占用了多少数据块.
digoal=> select relpages from pg_class where relname='test_indexscan';relpages----------10396(1 row)digoal=> select relpages from pg_class where relname='idx_test_indexscan_id';relpages----------3402(1 row)
接下来分析以下查询, 我们看到走索引扫描, 并且扫描的数据块是13547个. (10209 +3338).
扫描的数据块和实际表占用的数据块和索引块相当.
digoal=> explain (analyze,verbose,costs,buffers,timing) select * from test_indexscan where id>90000;QUERY PLAN-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Index Scan using idx_test_indexscan_id on digoal.test_indexscan (cost=0.43..99518.57 rows=4912065 width=37) (actual time=0.180..2172.949 rows=4910000 loops=1)Output: id, infoIndex Cond: (test_indexscan.id > 90000)Buffers: shared hit=10209 read=3338Total runtime: 2674.637 ms(5 rows)
这里使用索引扫描为什么没有带来heap page扫描的放大呢? 原因和值的顺序与物理存储顺序一致.
如下, 那么索引扫描的时候没有发生块的跳跃 :
digoal=> select correlation from pg_stats where tablename='test_indexscan' and attname='id';correlation-------------1(1 row)digoal=> select ctid,id from test_indexscan limit 10;ctid | id--------+---------(0,1) | 1(0,2) | 2(0,3) | 3(0,4) | 4(0,5) | 5(0,6) | 6(0,7) | 7(0,8) | 8(0,9) | 9(0,10) | 10(10 rows)
接下来我们插入随机数据, 使得索引扫描时发生heap page的跳跃.
digoal=> truncate test_indexscan ;TRUNCATE TABLEdigoal=> insert into test_indexscan select (random()*5000000)::int,md5(random()::text) from generate_series(1,100000);INSERT 0 100000
查询当前的ID列的顺性, 非常小, 说明这个值非常的离散.
digoal=> select correlation from pg_stats where tablename='test_indexscan' and attname='id';correlation-------------0.00986802(1 row)
从数据分布结果中也能看到这点.
digoal=> select ctid,id from test_indexscan limit 10;ctid | id--------+---------(0,1) | 4217216(0,2) | 2127868(0,3) | 2072952(0,4) | 62641(0,5) | 4927312(0,6) | 3000894(0,7) | 2799439(0,8) | 4165217(0,9) | 2446438(0,10) | 2835211(10 rows)
按以下顺序扫描, 显然会出现大量的数据块的跳跃.
digoal=> select id,ctid from test_indexscan order by id limit 10;id | ctid-----+-----------56 | (192,318)73 | (119,163)218 | (189,2)235 | (7,209)260 | (41,427)340 | (37,371)548 | (118,363)607 | (143,174)690 | (161,38)714 | (1,21)(10 rows)
当前这个表和索引占用的数据块如下 :
digoal=> select relpages from pg_class where relname='test_indexscan';relpages----------208(1 row)
digoal=> select relpages from pg_class where relname='idx_test_indexscan_id';relpages----------86(1 row)
接下来我们执行这个SQL, 发现走索引扫描了, 但是显然shared hit变得非常的大, 原因就是每扫描一个索引条目, 对应到heap page number都是跳跃的. 造成了heap page扫描的放大. 具体放大多少行呢, 和差出来的行差不多.
digoal=> explain (analyze,verbose,costs,buffers,timing) select * from test_indexscan where id>90000;QUERY PLAN----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Index Scan using idx_test_indexscan_id on digoal.test_indexscan (cost=0.29..2035.38 rows=99719 width=37) (actual time=0.027..87.456 rows=98229 loops=1)Output: id, infoIndex Cond: (test_indexscan.id > 90000)Buffers: shared hit=97837Total runtime: 97.370 ms(5 rows)
heap page scan放大评估和索引扫描了多少条目有关, 但至少有98229个条目 :
digoal=> select count(*) from test_indexscan where id>90000;count-------98229(1 row)
如果纯随机扫描, 那么将要扫描98229次heap page. 也就不难理解这里的Buffers: shared hit=97837.
但是实际上, PostgreSQL的优化器似乎没有关注这些开销, 因为我们看到的成本只有2035.38 (这里和random_page_cost以及effective_cache_size 大于整个表和索引的空间有关)
接下来把random_page_cost设置为2和1, 两个cost相减, 看看到底优化器评估了多少个块扫描.
digoal=> set random_page_cost=2;SETdigoal=> set enable_seqscan=off;SETdigoal=> explain (analyze,verbose,costs,buffers,timing) select * from test_indexscan where id>90000;QUERY PLAN----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Index Scan using idx_test_indexscan_id on digoal.test_indexscan (cost=0.29..2305.73 rows=98255 width=37) (actual time=0.045..81.768 rows=98229 loops=1)Output: id, infoIndex Cond: (test_indexscan.id > 90000)Buffers: shared hit=97837Total runtime: 92.186 ms(5 rows)
digoal=> set random_page_cost=1;SETdigoal=> explain (analyze,verbose,costs,buffers,timing) select * from test_indexscan where id>90000;QUERY PLAN----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Index Scan using idx_test_indexscan_id on digoal.test_indexscan (cost=0.29..2012.75 rows=98255 width=37) (actual time=0.028..80.055 rows=98229 loops=1)Output: id, infoIndex Cond: (test_indexscan.id > 90000)Buffers: shared hit=97837Total runtime: 90.549 ms(5 rows)
相减得到293, 即优化器认为index scan需要扫描293个数据块.
digoal=> select 2305-2012;?column?----------293(1 row)
接下来我把enable_indexscan关闭, 让优化器选择bitmap scan.
digoal=> set enable_indexscan=off;SETdigoal=> explain (analyze,verbose,costs,buffers,timing) select * from test_indexscan where id>90000;QUERY PLAN------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Bitmap Heap Scan on digoal.test_indexscan (cost=846.77..2282.96 rows=98255 width=37) (actual time=15.291..35.911 rows=98229 loops=1)Output: id, infoRecheck Cond: (test_indexscan.id > 90000)Buffers: shared hit=292-> Bitmap Index Scan on idx_test_indexscan_id (cost=0.00..822.21 rows=98255 width=0) (actual time=15.202..15.202 rows=98229 loops=1)Index Cond: (test_indexscan.id > 90000)Buffers: shared hit=84Total runtime: 45.838 ms(8 rows)
从bitmap scan的结果可以看到, 实际扫描的块为292个, 相比index scan少扫描了9.7万多数据块. 并且实际的执行时间也是bitmap scan要快很多.
本例PostgreSQL在计算index scan的random page的成本时,
评估得到的index scan成本小于bitmap index scan的成本, 然而实际上当
correlation
很小时, index scan会扫描更多次的heap page, 成本远远大于bitmap scan
.
本例发生这样的情况, 具体的原因和我们的成本因子设置有关系, 因为错误的设置了random_page_cost以及表和索引的大小小于effective_cache_size, PostgreSQL在使用这样的成本因子计算成本时, 出现了bitmap scan大于index scan成本的结果.
所以设置正确的成本因子非常重要, 这也是我们需要校准成本因子的原因.
例子 :
[postgres@digoal pgdata]$ psqlpsql (9.3.4)Type "help" for help.-- 默认的成本因子digoal=# show seq_page_cost;seq_page_cost---------------1(1 row)
digoal=# show random_page_cost;random_page_cost------------------4(1 row)
digoal=# show cpu_tuple_cost;cpu_tuple_cost----------------0.01(1 row)
digoal=# show cpu_index_tuple_cost;cpu_index_tuple_cost----------------------0.005(1 row)
digoal=# show cpu_operator_cost;cpu_operator_cost-------------------0.0025(1 row)
digoal=# show effective_cache_size;effective_cache_size----------------------128MB(1 row)-- 表和索引的大小digoal=# \dt+ tbl_cost_alignList of relationsSchema | Name | Type | Owner | Size | Description--------+----------------+-------+----------+--------+-------------public | tbl_cost_align | table | postgres | 219 MB |(1 row)
digoal=# \di+ tbl_cost_align_idList of relationsSchema | Name | Type | Owner | Table | Size | Description--------+-------------------+-------+----------+----------------+-------+-------------public | tbl_cost_align_id | index | postgres | tbl_cost_align | 64 MB |(1 row)-- 把random_page_cost校准为10, 这个在一般的硬件环境中都适用.digoal=# set random_page_cost=10;SET-- 默认选择了全表扫描digoal=# explain (analyze,costs,buffers,timing,verbose) select * from tbl_cost_align where id>2000000;QUERY PLAN-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Seq Scan on public.tbl_cost_align (cost=0.00..65538.00 rows=2996963 width=45) (actual time=0.050..1477.028 rows=2997015 loops=1)Output: id, info, crt_timeFilter: (tbl_cost_align.id > 2000000)Rows Removed by Filter: 2985Buffers: shared hit=28038Total runtime: 2011.742 ms(6 rows)-- 关闭全表扫描后, 选择了bitmap scandigoal=# set enable_seqscan=off;SETdigoal=# explain (analyze,costs,buffers,timing,verbose) select * from tbl_cost_align where id>2000000;QUERY PLAN----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Bitmap Heap Scan on public.tbl_cost_align (cost=105426.89..170926.93 rows=2996963 width=45) (actual time=1221.104..2911.889 rows=2997015 loops=1)Output: id, info, crt_timeRecheck Cond: (tbl_cost_align.id > 2000000)Rows Removed by Index Recheck: 2105Buffers: shared hit=36229-> Bitmap Index Scan on tbl_cost_align_id (cost=0.00..104677.65 rows=2996963 width=0) (actual time=1214.865..1214.865 rows=2997015 loops=1)Index Cond: (tbl_cost_align.id > 2000000)Buffers: shared hit=8191Total runtime: 3585.699 ms(9 rows)-- 关闭bitmap scan后选择了index scan, index scan的cost远远大于评估到的bitmap scan. 因为我们使用了正确的成本因子.digoal=# set enable_bitmapscan=off;SETdigoal=# explain (analyze,costs,buffers,timing,verbose) select * from tbl_cost_align where id>2000000;QUERY PLAN----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Index Scan using tbl_cost_align_id on public.tbl_cost_align (cost=0.43..16601388.04 rows=2996963 width=45) (actual time=0.064..5662.361 rows=2997015 loops=1)Output: id, info, crt_timeIndex Cond: (tbl_cost_align.id > 2000000)Buffers: shared hit=3005084Total runtime: 6173.067 ms(5 rows)-- 当错误的设置了random_page_cost=1=seq_page_cost时, 执行计划会有所改变(改变出现在effective_cache_size大于表和索引的大小时).-- the wrong plan cost occur when i set random_page_cost to 1, and effective_cache_size big then index size and table size in this case.-- 重新进入psql, 所有因子重回默认值.digoal=# set random_page_cost=1;SETdigoal=# explain (analyze,costs,buffers,timing,verbose) select * from tbl_cost_align where id>2000000;QUERY PLAN-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Seq Scan on public.tbl_cost_align (cost=0.00..65538.00 rows=2996963 width=45) (actual time=0.040..1692.712 rows=2997015 loops=1)Output: id, info, crt_timeFilter: (tbl_cost_align.id > 2000000)Rows Removed by Filter: 2985Buffers: shared hit=28038Total runtime: 2249.313 ms(6 rows)-- 目前看来还正确digoal=# set enable_seqscan=off;SETdigoal=# explain (analyze,costs,buffers,timing,verbose) select * from tbl_cost_align where id>2000000;QUERY PLAN--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Bitmap Heap Scan on public.tbl_cost_align (cost=31446.89..96946.93 rows=2996963 width=45) (actual time=1224.445..2454.797 rows=2997015 loops=1)Output: id, info, crt_timeRecheck Cond: (tbl_cost_align.id > 2000000)Rows Removed by Index Recheck: 2105Buffers: shared hit=36229-> Bitmap Index Scan on tbl_cost_align_id (cost=0.00..30697.65 rows=2996963 width=0) (actual time=1220.404..1220.404 rows=2997015 loops=1)Index Cond: (tbl_cost_align.id > 2000000)Buffers: shared hit=8191Total runtime: 2955.816 ms(9 rows)-- 当effective_cache_size还是小于表和索引时, 执行计划依旧正确digoal=# set effective_cache_size='280MB';SETdigoal=# explain (analyze,costs,buffers,timing,verbose) select * from tbl_cost_align where id>2000000;QUERY PLAN-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Bitmap Heap Scan on public.tbl_cost_align (cost=31446.89..96946.93 rows=2996963 width=45) (actual time=963.845..2060.463 rows=2997015 loops=1)Output: id, info, crt_timeRecheck Cond: (tbl_cost_align.id > 2000000)Rows Removed by Index Recheck: 2105Buffers: shared hit=36229-> Bitmap Index Scan on tbl_cost_align_id (cost=0.00..30697.65 rows=2996963 width=0) (actual time=959.673..959.673 rows=2997015loops=1)Index Cond: (tbl_cost_align.id > 2000000)Buffers: shared hit=8191Total runtime: 2515.649 ms(9 rows)-- 当effective_cache_size大于表和索引的大小时, index scan的成本低于bitmap scan的成本了.-- When effective_cache_size large then table and index's size. then use index scan first than bitmap scan.digoal=# set effective_cache_size='283MB';SETdigoal=# explain (analyze,costs,buffers,timing,verbose) select * from tbl_cost_align where id>2000000;QUERY PLAN-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Index Scan using tbl_cost_align_id on public.tbl_cost_align (cost=0.43..92030.24 rows=2996963 width=45) (actual time=0.045..5238.361 rows=2997015 loops=1)Output: id, info, crt_timeIndex Cond: (tbl_cost_align.id > 2000000)Buffers: shared hit=3005084Total runtime: 5689.583 ms(5 rows)-- 如果这个时候再把random_page_cost调回正常值10, 则执行计划回归正常.digoal=# set random_page_cost=10;SETdigoal=# explain (analyze,costs,buffers,timing,verbose) select * from tbl_cost_align where id>2000000;QUERY PLAN---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Bitmap Heap Scan on public.tbl_cost_align (cost=105426.89..170926.93 rows=2996963 width=45) (actual time=918.225..2195.414 rows=2997015 loops=1)Output: id, info, crt_timeRecheck Cond: (tbl_cost_align.id > 2000000)Rows Removed by Index Recheck: 2105Buffers: shared hit=36229-> Bitmap Index Scan on tbl_cost_align_id (cost=0.00..104677.65 rows=2996963 width=0) (actual time=913.935..913.935 rows=2997015 loops=1)Index Cond: (tbl_cost_align.id > 2000000)Buffers: shared hit=8191Total runtime: 2698.429 ms(9 rows)
digoal=# set enable_seqscan=on;SETdigoal=# explain (analyze,costs,buffers,timing,verbose) select * from tbl_cost_align where id>2000000;QUERY PLAN-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Seq Scan on public.tbl_cost_align (cost=0.00..65538.00 rows=2996963 width=45) (actual time=0.020..1522.791 rows=2997015 loops=1)Output: id, info, crt_timeFilter: (tbl_cost_align.id > 2000000)Rows Removed by Filter: 2985Buffers: shared hit=28038Total runtime: 2104.057 ms(6 rows)
本例说明了成本因子的重要性. 千万不能随意设置, 即使完全内存命中, random_page_cost也应该大于seq_page_cost.
我在前一篇BLOG中测试了这样的场景, 完全内存命中的场景可以设置 random_page_cost=1.6; seq_page_cost=1;
[参考]
4. src/backend/optimizer/path/costsize.c
cost_index function :/** Now interpolate based on estimated index order correlation to get total* disk I/O cost for main table accesses.*/csquared = indexCorrelation * indexCorrelation;
run_cost += max_IO_cost + csquared * (min_IO_cost - max_IO_cost);
扫一扫
1164
被折叠的 条评论
为什么被折叠?
到【灌水乐园】发言
