exist和left join 性能对比
今天遇到一个性能问题，再调优过程中发现耗时最久的计划是exist 部分涉及的三个表。
然后计划用left join 来替换exist，然后查询了很多资料，大部分都说exist和left join 性能差不多。 为了验证这一结论进行了如下实验
步骤如下
1、创建测试表
drop table app_family;
CREATE TABLE app_family (
"family_id" character varying(32 char) NOT NULL,
"application_id" character varying(32 char) NULL,
"family_number" character varying(50 char) ,
"household_register_number" character varying(50 char),
"poverty_reason" character varying(32 char),
CONSTRAINT "pk_app_family_idpk" PRIMARY KEY (family_id));
insert into app_family select generate_series(1,1000000),generate_series(1,1000000),'aaaa','aaa','bbb' from dual ;
create table app_family2 as select * from app_family;
create table app_memeber as select * from app_family;
2、验证两张表join和exist 性能对比
语句1、两张表exist
explain analyze select a1.application_id,a1.family_id from app_family a1 where
a1.family_id >1000 and
EXISTS(
SELECT
1
FROM
app_family2 a2
WHERE
a2.application_id=a1.application_id
and a2.family_id > 500000
)
总计用时646.203 ms
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gather (cost=16927.11..44466.84 rows=111111 width=12) (actual time=354.314..621.714 rows=500000 loops=1)
Workers Planned: 2
Workers Launched: 2
-> Parallel Hash Semi Join (cost=15927.11..32355.74 rows=46296 width=12) (actual time=355.657..512.049 rows=166667 loops=3)
Hash Cond: ((a1.application_id)::text = (a2.application_id)::text)
-> Parallel Seq Scan on app_family a1 (cost=0.00..13648.00 rows=138889 width=12) (actual time=0.222..111.618 rows=333000 loops=3)
Filter: ((family_id)::integer > 1000)
Rows Removed by Filter: 333
-> Parallel Hash (cost=13648.00..13648.00 rows=138889 width=6) (actual time=149.203..149.204 rows=166667 loops=3)
Buckets: 131072 Batches: 8 Memory Usage: 3520kB
-> Parallel Seq Scan on app_family2 a2 (cost=0.00..13648.00 rows=138889 width=6) (actual time=48.576..109.251 rows=166667 loops=3)
Filter: ((family_id)::integer > 500000)
Rows Removed by Filter: 166667
Planning Time: 0.145 ms
Execution Time: 645.095 ms
(15 rows)
Time: 646.203 ms
kingbase=#
语句2 两张表join
explain analyze select a1.application_id,a1.family_id from app_family a1 LEFT JOIN app_family2 a2 ON a2.application_id=a1.application_id
WHERE a1.family_id >1000 AND a2.family_id > 500000
总计执行时间624.211 ms
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gather (cost=16927.11..44300.95 rows=111111 width=12) (actual time=349.752..601.304 rows=500000 loops=1)
Workers Planned: 2
Workers Launched: 2
-> Parallel Hash Join (cost=15927.11..32189.85 rows=46296 width=12) (actual time=337.548..508.139 rows=166667 loops=3)
Hash Cond: ((a1.application_id)::text = (a2.application_id)::text)
-> Parallel Seq Scan on app_family a1 (cost=0.00..13648.00 rows=138889 width=12) (actual time=0.087..111.949 rows=333000 loops=3)
Filter: ((family_id)::integer > 1000)
Rows Removed by Filter: 333
-> Parallel Hash (cost=13648.00..13648.00 rows=138889 width=6) (actual time=131.718..131.719 rows=166667 loops=3)
Buckets: 131072 Batches: 8 Memory Usage: 3488kB
-> Parallel Seq Scan on app_family2 a2 (cost=0.00..13648.00 rows=138889 width=6) (actual time=31.730..90.917 rows=166667 loops=3)
Filter: ((family_id)::integer > 500000)
Rows Removed by Filter: 166667
Planning Time: 0.093 ms
Execution Time: 623.465 ms
(15 rows)
Time: 624.211 ms
两张表场景总结
针对两张表的对比可以发现join还相对满了10几ms但是总的来说两边 差异不大。所以再两张表的关联情况下 join和exist 性能相近。
3、验证3张表join和exist 性能对比
语句1 三张表exist
本场景最开始执行时 exit 用户6 s多，原因时用到了内存排序，后来调整了work_mem 排除了内存排序的影响，最终执行时间
2911.146 ms
explain analyze select a1.application_id,a1.family_id from app_family a1 ,app_family2 a2 where
a1.family_id >1000 and a2.family_id < 900000 and
EXISTS(
SELECT
1
FROM
app_memeber m
WHERE
m.application_id=a1.application_id
and m.family_id=a2.family_id
)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Gather (cost=61282.11..88664.67 rows=111111 width=12) (actual time=2112.079..2847.233 rows=898999 loops=1)
Workers Planned: 2
Workers Launched: 2
-> Parallel Hash Join (cost=60282.11..76553.57 rows=46296 width=12) (actual time=2119.345..2705.935 rows=299666 loops=3)
Hash Cond: ((m.family_id)::text = (a2.family_id)::text)
-> Hash Join (cost=44898.00..60455.72 rows=138889 width=18) (actual time=1885.923..2264.850 rows=333000 loops=3)
Hash Cond: ((a1.application_id)::text = (m.application_id)::text)
-> Parallel Seq Scan on app_family a1 (cost=0.00..13648.00 rows=138889 width=12) (actual time=0.091..109.196 rows=333000 loops=3)
Filter: ((family_id)::integer > 1000)
Rows Removed by Filter: 333
-> Hash (cost=32398.00..32398.00 rows=1000000 width=12) (actual time=1880.027..1880.028 rows=1000000 loops=3)
Buckets: 1048576 Batches: 1 Memory Usage: 52897kB
-> HashAggregate (cost=22398.00..32398.00 rows=1000000 width=12) (actual time=957.973..1382.683 rows=1000000 loops=3)
Group Key: (m.application_id)::text, (m.family_id)::text
-> Seq Scan on app_memeber m (cost=0.00..17398.00 rows=1000000 width=12) (actual time=0.047..247.902 rows=1000000 loops=3
)
-> Parallel Hash (cost=13648.00..13648.00 rows=138889 width=6) (actual time=231.705..231.706 rows=300000 loops=3)
Buckets: 1048576 (originally 524288) Batches: 1 (originally 1) Memory Usage: 47552kB
-> Parallel Seq Scan on app_family2 a2 (cost=0.00..13648.00 rows=138889 width=6) (actual time=0.039..100.756 rows=300000 loops=3)
Filter: ((family_id)::integer < 900000)
Rows Removed by Filter: 33334
Planning Time: 0.359 ms
Execution Time: 2911.146 ms
(22 rows)
语句2 三张表join
为了保证语句的一致性，三张表的join顺序保持和语句1的执行计划中的顺序一致，join总计用时1476.651 ms
explain analyze select a1.application_id,a1.family_id from app_family a1
left join app_memeber m on a1.application_id = m.application_id LEFT JOIN app_family2 a2 ON m.family_id = a2.family_id
WHERE a1.family_id >1000 AND a2.family_id < 900000
Gather (cost=32990.22..64898.93 rows=111111 width=12) (actual time=993.681..1436.895 rows=898999 loops=1)
Workers Planned: 2
Workers Launched: 2
-> Parallel Hash Join (cost=31990.22..52787.83 rows=46296 width=12) (actual time=982.512..1241.385 rows=299666 loops=3)
Hash Cond: ((m.application_id)::text = (a1.application_id)::text)
-> Parallel Hash Join (cost=15927.11..34245.98 rows=138889 width=6) (actual time=377.411..635.945 rows=300000 loops=3)
Hash Cond: ((m.family_id)::text = (a2.family_id)::text)
-> Parallel Seq Scan on app_memeber m (cost=0.00..11564.67 rows=416667 width=12) (actual time=0.034..59.470 rows=333333 loops=3)
-> Parallel Hash (cost=13648.00..13648.00 rows=138889 width=6) (actual time=232.286..232.287 rows=300000 loops=3)
Buckets: 131072 (originally 131072) Batches: 16 (originally 8) Memory Usage: 3296kB
-> Parallel Seq Scan on app_family2 a2 (cost=0.00..13648.00 rows=138889 width=6) (actual time=0.030..104.370 rows=300000 loops=
3)
Filter: ((family_id)::integer < 900000)
Rows Removed by Filter: 33334
-> Parallel Hash (cost=13648.00..13648.00 rows=138889 width=12) (actual time=271.185..271.185 rows=333000 loops=3)
Buckets: 131072 (originally 131072) Batches: 16 (originally 8) Memory Usage: 4032kB
-> Parallel Seq Scan on app_family a1 (cost=0.00..13648.00 rows=138889 width=12) (actual time=0.091..129.188 rows=333000 loops=3)
Filter: ((family_id)::integer > 1000)
Rows Removed by Filter: 333
Planning Time: 0.140 ms
Execution Time: 1475.305 ms
(20 rows)
Time: 1476.651 ms (00:01.477)
总结三张表场景
在三张表的场景下exist用时2911.146 ms ，join用时1476.651 ms 可见 join的顺序明显优于exist。
在三张表的场景下可以看到，针对中间表appmember扫描时， exist语句用到HashAggregate 并做了 Group Key，所以导致exist 执行时间增加。如果work_mem 配置不合适时间会更长。
exist和left join 性能对比的更多相关文章
- Go 字符串连接+=与strings.Join性能对比
Go字符串连接 对于字符串的连接大致有两种方式: 1.通过+号连接 func StrPlus1(a []string) string { var s, sep string for i := 0; i ...
- 自己写的轻量级PHP框架trig与laravel5.1,yii2性能对比
看了下当前最热门的php开发框架,想对比一下自己写的框架与这些框架的性能对比.先看下当前流行框架的投票情况. 看结果对比,每个测试脚本做了一个数据库的联表查询并进行print_r输出,查询的sql语句 ...
- SQL点滴10—使用with语句来写一个稍微复杂sql语句，附加和子查询的性能对比
原文:SQL点滴10-使用with语句来写一个稍微复杂sql语句,附加和子查询的性能对比 今天偶尔看到sql中也有with关键字,好歹也写了几年的sql语句,居然第一次接触,无知啊.看了一位博主的文章 ...
- python3下multiprocessing、threading和gevent性能对比----暨进程池、线程池和协程池性能对比
python3下multiprocessing.threading和gevent性能对比----暨进程池.线程池和协程池性能对比 标签: python3 / 线程池 / multiprocessi ...
- SQL Server-聚焦IN VS EXISTS VS JOIN性能分析（十九）
前言 本节我们开始讲讲这一系列性能比较的终极篇IN VS EXISTS VS JOIN的性能分析,前面系列有人一直在说场景不够,这里我们结合查询索引列.非索引列.查询小表.查询大表来综合分析,简短的内 ...
- [原] KVM 环境下MySQL性能对比
KVM 环境下MySQL性能对比 标签(空格分隔): Cloud2.0 [TOC] 测试目的 对比MySQL在物理机和KVM环境下性能情况 压测标准 压测遵循单一变量原则,所有的对比都是只改变一个变量 ...
- 浅谈C++之冒泡排序、希尔排序、快速排序、插入排序、堆排序、基数排序性能对比分析之后续补充说明（有图有真相）
如果你觉得我的有些话有点唐突,你不理解可以想看看前一篇<C++之冒泡排序.希尔排序.快速排序.插入排序.堆排序.基数排序性能对比分析>. 这几天闲着没事就写了一篇<C++之冒泡排序. ...
- Java--Stream，NIO ByteBuffer，NIO MappedByteBuffer性能对比
目前Java中最IO有多种文件读取的方法,本文章对比Stream,NIO ByteBuffer,NIO MappedByteBuffer的性能,让我们知道到底怎么能写出性能高的文件读取代码. pack ...
- C正则库做DNS域名验证时的性能对比
C正则库做DNS域名验证时的性能对比 本文对C的正则库regex和pcre在做域名验证的场景下做评测. 验证DNS域名的正则表达式为: "^[0-9a-zA-Z_-]+(\\.[0-9a ...
- 开发语言性能对比，C++、Java、Python、LUA、TCC
一直想做开发语言性能对比,刚好有时间都做了给大家参考一下, 编译类:C++和Java表现还不错 脚本类:TCC脚本动态运行C语言,性能比其他脚本快好多... 想玩TCC的同学下载测试包,TCC目录下修 ...
随机推荐
- XML和JSON的比较
XML和JSON的比较 XML与JSON都可以用来描述或者存储数据,两者都有各自的优点,使用场景取决于需求. 描述 XML 可扩展标记语言Extensible Markup Language,是一种用 ...
- 微信小程序获取本日、本周、本月、本年时间段
原文链接 https://cslaoxu.vip/110.html 说明 最近需要用到统计不同时间段内的记录数,所以找了一下现成的工具类.下面就演示一下如何引用到实际项目中. 详细用法请参考:http ...
- nginx新增conf文件
说明 最近租了一台美国vps,通过nginx反向代理设置搞谷歌镜像.因为BxxDx搜索太垃圾.中间涉及到添加反向代理配置. 操作步骤 1.在conf.d文件下新增配置 cd /etc/nginx/co ...
- html+css:小米顶部菜单+二级菜单
1.源码 <!DOCTYPE html> <html lang="en"> <head> <meta charset="UTF- ...
- Git 分支管理参考模型
一个值得参考的Git分支管理模型如下: master 生产主分支,发布到生产环境使用这个分支,由hotfix或者release分支合并过来,不直接提交代码. release 预发布分支, 基于feat ...
- django学习第八天--多表操作删除和修改，子查询连表查询，双下划线跨表查询，聚合查询，分组查询，F查询，Q查询
orm多条操作 删除和修改 修改 在一对一和一对多关系时,和单表操作是一样的 一对一 一个作者对应一个信息 ad_obj = models.AuthorDetail.objects.get(id=1) ...
- 【Java复健指南07】OOP中级02-重写与多态思想
前情提要:https://www.cnblogs.com/DAYceng/category/2227185.html 重写 注意事项和使用细节 方法重写也叫方法覆法,需要满足下面的条件 1.子类的方法 ...
- 【Azure Key Vault】使用Azure CLI获取Key Vault 机密遇见问题后使用curl命令来获取机密内容
问题描述 在使用Azure Key Vault的过程中,遇见无法获取机密信息,在不方便直接写代码的情况下,快速使用Azure CLI指令来验证当前使用的认证是否可以获取到正确的机密值. 使用CLI的指 ...
- 【Azure 应用服务】用App Service部署运行 Vue.js 编写的项目，应该怎么部署运行呢？
问题描述 用App Service部署运行 Vue.js 编写的项目,应该怎么部署运行呢? 问题解答 VUE通常是运行在客户端侧的JS框架. App Service 在这种场景中是以静态文件的形式提供 ...
- C++ //count_if //按条件统计元素个数 //自定义和 内置
1 //按条件统计元素个数 2 //count_if 3 4 #include <iostream> 5 #include<string> 6 #include<vect ...