Would a different kind of column be faster? For example an integer
No. timestamp and timestamptz are just unsigned 64-bit integers internally anyway.
Is there some way to not lock the column?
It doesn't lock the column. It takes weak table lock that doesn't really block anything except DDL, and takes a row level lock on the row you're updating.
There is no way to prevent the row level lock. It exists because without it behaviour and ordering concurrent updates would be undefined. We don't like undefined behaviour in RDBMSs.
It only blocks concurrent updates of the same row anyway.
Any other tips to improve this?
Not with the detail provided. There's likely a better way to do what you're trying to do, but it'll probably involve taking a few steps back and looking for a different strategy for solving the underlying problem.
In the specific case of cache invalidation I think you might want to look into LISTEN and NOTIFY. Again though, there just isn't enough info here to go on.
This can be improved in a thousand and one ways, then it should be a matter of milliseconds.
Better Queries
This is just your query reformatted with aliases and some noise removed to clear the fog:
SELECT count(DISTINCT t.id)
FROM tickets t
JOIN transactions tr ON tr.objectid = t.id
JOIN attachments a ON a.transactionid = tr.id
WHERE t.status <> 'deleted'
AND t.type = 'ticket'
AND t.effectiveid = t.id
AND tr.objecttype = 'RT::Ticket'
AND a.contentindex @@ plainto_tsquery('frobnicate');
Most of the problem with your query lies in the first two tables tickets and transactions, which are missing from the question. I'm filling in with educated guesses.
t.status, t.objecttype and tr.objecttype should probably not be text, but enum or possibly some very small value referencing a look-up table.
EXISTS semi-join
Assuming tickets.id is the primary key, this rewritten form should be much cheaper:
SELECT count(*)
FROM tickets t
WHERE status <> 'deleted'
AND type = 'ticket'
AND effectiveid = id
AND EXISTS (
SELECT 1
FROM transactions tr
JOIN attachments a ON a.transactionid = tr.id
WHERE tr.objectid = t.id
AND tr.objecttype = 'RT::Ticket'
AND a.contentindex @@ plainto_tsquery('frobnicate')
);
Instead of multiplying rows with two 1:n joins, only to collapse multiple matches in the end with count(DISTINCT id), use an EXISTS semi-join, which can stop looking further as soon as the first match is found and at the same time obsoletes the final DISTINCT step. Per documentation:
The subquery will generally only be executed long enough to determine
whether at least one row is returned, not all the way to completion.
Effectiveness depends on how many transactions per ticket and attachments per transaction there are.
Determine order of joins with join_collapse_limit
If you know that your search term for attachments.contentindex is very selective - more selective than other conditions in the query (which is probably the case for 'frobnicate', but not for 'problem'), you can force the sequence of joins. The query planner can hardly judge selectiveness of particular words, except for the most common ones. Per documentation:
join_collapse_limit (integer)
[...]
Because the query planner does not always choose the optimal
join order, advanced users can elect to temporarily set this variable
to 1, and then specify the join order they desire explicitly.
Use SET LOCAL for the purpose to only set it for the current transaction.
BEGIN;
SET LOCAL join_collapse_limit = 1;
SELECT count(DISTINCT t.id)
FROM attachments a -- 1st
JOIN transactions tr ON tr.id = a.transactionid -- 2nd
JOIN tickets t ON t.id = tr.objectid -- 3rd
WHERE t.status <> 'deleted'
AND t.type = 'ticket'
AND t.effectiveid = t.id
AND tr.objecttype = 'RT::Ticket'
AND a.contentindex @@ plainto_tsquery('frobnicate');
ROLLBACK; -- or COMMIT;
The order of WHERE conditions is always irrelevant. Only the order of joins is relevant here.
Or use a CTE like @jjanes explains in "Option 2". for a similar effect.
Indexes
B-tree indexes
Take all conditions on tickets that are used identically with most queries and create a partial index on tickets:
CREATE INDEX tickets_partial_idx
ON tickets(id)
WHERE status <> 'deleted'
AND type = 'ticket'
AND effectiveid = id;
If one of the conditions is variable, drop it from the WHERE condition and prepend the column as index column instead.
Another one on transactions:
CREATE INDEX transactions_partial_idx
ON transactions(objecttype, objectid, id)
The third column is just to enable index-only scans.
Also, since you have this composite index with two integer columns on attachments:
"attachments3" btree (parent, transactionid)
This additional index is a complete waste, delete it:
"attachments1" btree (parent)
Details:
GIN index
Add transactionid to your GIN index to make it a lot more effective. This may be another silver bullet, because it potentially allows index-only scans, eliminating visits to the big table completely.
You need additional operator classes provided by the additional module btree_gin. Detailed instructions:
"contentindex_idx" gin (transactionid, contentindex)
4 bytes from an integer column don't make the index much bigger. Also, fortunately for you, GIN indexes are different from B-tree indexes in a crucial aspect. Per documentation:
A multicolumn GIN index can be used with query conditions that involve
any subset of the index's columns. Unlike B-tree or GiST, index search
effectiveness is the same regardless of which index column(s) the
query conditions use.
Bold emphasis mine. So you just need the one (big and somewhat costly) GIN index.
Table definition
Move the integer not null columns to the front. This has a couple of minor positive effects on storage and performance. Saves 4 - 8 bytes per row in this case.
Table "public.attachments"
Column | Type | Modifiers
-----------------+-----------------------------+------------------------------
id | integer | not null default nextval('...
transactionid | integer | not null
parent | integer | not null default 0
creator | integer | not null default 0 -- !
created | timestamp | -- !
messageid | character varying(160) |
subject | character varying(255) |
filename | character varying(255) |
contenttype | character varying(80) |
contentencoding | character varying(80) |
content | text |
headers | text |
contentindex | tsvector |
Best Answer
For the query you give, the optimal general index would be on
(my_timestamp, my_row_id, my_item_id), with the order of the last two columns possibly switched. This will allow an index-only scan to be used which possibly doesn't visit the table at all, since all columns you reference would be available in the index. How much of a performance improvement this would give you depends on how much of your table meets the timestamp WHERE condition, and how well-vacuumed you keep the table. You might do even better with a partial index if the timestamp hardcoded into your query never changes, or changes in a very rote manner.There is little reason to think that this would be helpful in general, and certainly wouldn't help with the query you show (you would have to rewrite the query before it could use such an index, and then what happens if the timestamp is exactly '2018-09-13 00:00:00' ?)