This commit is contained in:
@@ -1,5 +1,10 @@
|
||||
PERFORMANCE SPECS AND USEFUL INFO
|
||||
|
||||
//this is handy:
|
||||
http://okigiveup.net/what-postgresql-tells-you-about-its-performance/
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Useful queries to indicate how indexes are being used in postgresql
|
||||
|
||||
This is a test query I used with widget and name fetching performance analysis:
|
||||
@@ -16,19 +21,21 @@ select * from pg_stat_user_indexes
|
||||
Reveals Unused indices
|
||||
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
|
||||
|
||||
SELECT
|
||||
relid::regclass AS table,
|
||||
indexrelid::regclass AS index,
|
||||
pg_size_pretty(pg_relation_size(indexrelid::regclass)) AS index_size,
|
||||
idx_tup_read,
|
||||
idx_tup_fetch,
|
||||
idx_scan
|
||||
FROM
|
||||
pg_stat_user_indexes
|
||||
JOIN pg_index USING (indexrelid)
|
||||
WHERE
|
||||
idx_scan > 0
|
||||
AND indisunique IS FALSE
|
||||
SELECT * FROM pg_stat_user_indexes order by idx_scan asc
|
||||
|
||||
The basic technique is to look at pg_stat_user_indexes and look for ones where idx_scan,
|
||||
the count of how many times that index has been used to answer queries, is zero, or at least very low.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Detecting missing indexes
|
||||
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
|
||||
SELECT relname, seq_scan, seq_tup_read,
|
||||
idx_scan, idx_tup_fetch,
|
||||
seq_tup_read / seq_scan
|
||||
FROM pg_stat_user_tables
|
||||
WHERE seq_scan > 0
|
||||
ORDER BY seq_tup_read DESC;
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Shows info on all indices
|
||||
@@ -103,4 +110,34 @@ I'm going to enact a policy to index id,name in all objects that have many colum
|
||||
|
||||
Ok, it just makes logical sense to keep the indexes even if slightly slower, I can revisit this later, the difference is miniscule. I suspect with a bigger database there would definitely be better peformance.
|
||||
|
||||
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
|
||||
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
|
||||
LOCALE ITEM
|
||||
b4 running multiple subset fetches
|
||||
|
||||
256287 256301 "public" "alocaleitem" "alocaleitem_localeid_key_idx" "2350" "13667" "5172"
|
||||
256287 256302 "public" "alocaleitem" "alocaleitem_localeid_key_display_idx" "2618" "2618" "2618"
|
||||
256287 256294 "public" "alocaleitem" "alocaleitem_pkey" "7085" "7090" "7085"
|
||||
|
||||
"alocaleitem" "24" "133010" "12053" "14875" "5542"
|
||||
|
||||
after I run a bunch of fetch subset test over and over:
|
||||
256287 256301 "public" "alocaleitem" "alocaleitem_localeid_key_idx" "2398" "13715" "5220"
|
||||
256287 256302 "public" "alocaleitem" "alocaleitem_localeid_key_display_idx" "2618" "2618" "2618"
|
||||
256287 256294 "public" "alocaleitem" "alocaleitem_pkey" "7085" "7090" "7085"
|
||||
|
||||
seq_tup_read
|
||||
"alocaleitem" "24" "133010" "12073" "14895" "5542"
|
||||
|
||||
more
|
||||
|
||||
"alocaleitem" "24" "133010" "12141" "14963" "5542"
|
||||
|
||||
256287 256301 "public" "alocaleitem" "alocaleitem_localeid_key_idx" "2438" "13755" "5260"
|
||||
256287 256302 "public" "alocaleitem" "alocaleitem_localeid_key_display_idx" "2618" "2618" "2618"
|
||||
256287 256294 "public" "alocaleitem" "alocaleitem_pkey" "7085" "7090" "7085"
|
||||
|
||||
Fresh regen, removed alocaleitem_localeid_key_idx kept alocaleitem_localeid_key_display_idx
|
||||
Before any test runs fetching subsets:
|
||||
256514 256521 "public" "alocaleitem" "alocaleitem_pkey" "0" "0" "0"
|
||||
256514 256528 "public" "alocaleitem" "alocaleitem_localeid_key_display_idx" "1667" "1667" "1667"
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -29,6 +29,9 @@ IMMEDIATE ITEMS:
|
||||
================
|
||||
|
||||
- Schema: clean up all the LOOKAT items and verify the indexes are being used
|
||||
- Run many tests then run this query: SELECT * FROM pg_stat_user_indexes order by idx_scan asc
|
||||
- Look for any items that are not a primary key (name ends in _idx) and show zero idx_scan's, those are redundant
|
||||
- The rest is Greek to me and not in a good way.
|
||||
|
||||
- EventLogProcessor.AddEntry: CHANGE this to save the context itself and then change all callers to handle that (remove save)
|
||||
- I originally didn't have the save in there because I thought subsequent code might all share in the single context save,
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user