Hi,
I can`t do that, because the database contains sensitive data. I`m not allowed to give someone else the data. I don`t know if the schema would help…
I think of something else…Currently I`m executing the query only once and look at the time. Could it help if I run the query many 10 or 100 times in order, so that the caches and memory can be filled with the right data? I think that this could help the OS to fill it with the needed data. But I don`t see any possibility to run sql statements from a file. Am I`m missing something?
Best regards, Martin
Am 28.06.2015 um 13:14 schrieb Niels Nes Niels.Nes@cwi.nl:
On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 02:14:18PM +0200, Martin Schwitalla wrote:
Well ok, the values for the between statement were wrong. It should be between 189 and 368 :) The result is now right, but the execution time stays the same or is even minimal longer than before. I have uploaded a trace to my dropbox of the query.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/q2j9g0gsvaylkw6/query_trace_.txt?dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/s/q2j9g0gsvaylkw6/query_trace_.txt?dl=0
Martin
Could you send the output of plan, ie plan followed by your query? That should return the relational plan.
It seems the join order is incorrect (not optimal) and MonetDB seems to have some problems with the many 'OR's in your query.
Niels
Regards, Martin
Am 26.06.2015 um 13:45 schrieb Martin Schwitalla < MSchwitalla1@gmx.de>:
Hi,
the prefilter makes it faster, but somehow i get three times more tupels in the result than before. How is that possible?
((calls.sample_id BETWEEN 226 AND 369) AND calls.sample_id IN (227, 230, 233, 234, 237, 190, 195, 198, 199, 203, 270, 273, 276, 189, 343, 366, 367, 368))) AS anon_2
Best regards, Martin
Am 25.06.2015 um 22:08 schrieb Martin Kersten < martin@monetdb.org>: Hi On 25/06/15 17:38, Martin Schwitalla wrote: ... I added some primary and foreign key constraints and set the database to readonly, but it didn`t do much. The trace tells me that some joins take the most time and some subselects also take much time. But nothing besides that. The query has 10 joins. ... Indeed a complex, probably generated SQL query. The trace information of the expensive joins and thetaselects would be my first target. An expensive join might typically result if its hash support does not fit in memory, which will cause disk accesses. The predicate (calls.sample_id IN (227, 230, 233,.... and the like probably produce to multiple thetaselect that are merged in the end. It might help (worth trying) to put a range pre-filter (call.sample between 227 and 368 and calls.sample in (227,....)) The fact that minimal-pipe is better then the default-pipe indicates a lot of competition for scarce resources during execution. regards, Martin _______________________________________________ users-list mailing list users-list@monetdb.org https://www.monetdb.org/mailman/listinfo/users-list
users-list mailing list users-list@monetdb.org https://www.monetdb.org/mailman/listinfo/users-list
users-list mailing list users-list@monetdb.org mailto:users-list@monetdb.org https://www.monetdb.org/mailman/listinfo/users-list https://www.monetdb.org/mailman/listinfo/users-list
-- Niels Nes, Manager ITF, Centrum Wiskunde & Informatica (CWI) Science Park 123, 1098 XG Amsterdam, The Netherlands room L3.14, phone ++31 20 592-4098 sip:4098@sip.cwi.nl sip:4098@sip.cwi.nl url: https://www.cwi.nl/people/niels https://www.cwi.nl/people/niels e-mail: Niels.Nes@cwi.nl mailto:Niels.Nes@cwi.nl _______________________________________________ users-list mailing list users-list@monetdb.org mailto:users-list@monetdb.org https://www.monetdb.org/mailman/listinfo/users-list https://www.monetdb.org/mailman/listinfo/users-list