You write:
Each customer can have multiple sites, but only one should be
displayed in this list.
Yet, your query retrieves all rows. That would be a point to optimize. But you also do not define which site
is to be picked.
Either way, it does not matter much here. Your EXPLAIN
shows only 5026 rows for the site
scan (5018 for the customer
scan). So hardly any customer actually has more than one site. Did you ANALYZE
your tables before running EXPLAIN
?
From the numbers I see in your EXPLAIN
, indexes will give you nothing for this query. Sequential table scans will be the fastest possible way. Half a second is rather slow for 5000 rows, though. Maybe your database needs some general performance tuning?
Maybe the query itself is faster, but "half a second" includes network transfer? EXPLAIN ANALYZE would tell us more.
If this query is your bottleneck, I would suggest you implement a materialized view.
After you provided more information I find that my diagnosis pretty much holds.
The query itself needs 27 ms. Not much of a problem there. "Half a second" was the kind of misunderstanding I had suspected. The slow part is the network transfer (plus ssh encoding / decoding, possibly rendering). You should only retrieve 100 rows, that would solve most of it, even if it means to execute the whole query every time.
If you go the route with a materialized view like I proposed you could add a serial number without gaps to the table plus index on it - by adding a column row_number() OVER (<your sort citeria here>) AS mv_id
.
Then you can query:
SELECT *
FROM materialized_view
WHERE mv_id >= 2700
AND mv_id < 2800;
This will perform very fast. LIMIT
/ OFFSET
cannot compete, that needs to compute the whole table before it can sort and pick 100 rows.
pgAdmin timing
When you execute a query from the query tool, the message pane shows something like:
Total query runtime: 62 ms.
And the status line shows the same time. I quote pgAdmin help about that:
The status line will show how long the last query took to complete. If
a dataset was returned, not only the elapsed time for server execution
is displayed, but also the time to retrieve the data from the server
to the Data Output page.
If you want to see the time on the server you need to use SQL EXPLAIN ANALYZE
or the built in Shift + F7
keyboard shortcut or Query -> Explain analyze
. Then, at the bottom of the explain output you get something like this:
Total runtime: 0.269 ms
You should be able to do something like this with a writable CTE:
WITH i AS (
INSERT INTO host (hostname, hostrole) VALUES ('foobar', 'Virtual') RETURNING id
)
INSERT INTO interface (name, mac, host)
SELECT 'eth0', '00:50:56:9d:34:d4', id
FROM i
(untested, but it should be something like that)
Writable CTE is in PostgreSQL 9.1 and up.
Best Answer
Yea there's no reason not to if it fits your use case better, there's nothing wrong with that design. My only suggestion would to add a
extra_type
field to explicitly identify whether the record is of typeperson
orcar
. You'll likely find a field like that will be helpful later on. But yes that's a valid schema design.After further clarification in the comments, you'd have to make a couple changes to natively accomplish this to still be able to support foreign key constraints in the database (otherwise what you'd be looking for is a polymorphic foreign key which isn't natively supported).
The first change is you'd have to merge your
person
andcar
table into a single table, e.g.person_or_car
with theperson_or_car_id
primary key field. The second change is you'd need to add anextra_type_id
field to theperson_or_car
table to distinguish between the two. And finally you'll need to add theextra_type_id
field to theextra_m2m
table, and create the foreign key constraint on it.Example query with the
extra_type_id
field, as discussed in the comments, for step 3: