Skip to content
This repository was archived by the owner on Apr 26, 2024. It is now read-only.

Commit b2c2b03

Browse files
authored
Fix PostgreSQL sometimes using table scans for event_search (#14409)
PostgreSQL may underestimate the number of distinct `room_id`s in `event_search`, which can cause it to use table scans for queries for multiple rooms. Fix this by setting `n_distinct` on the column. Resolves #14402. Signed-off-by: Sean Quah <[email protected]>
1 parent d10a85e commit b2c2b03

File tree

2 files changed

+34
-0
lines changed

2 files changed

+34
-0
lines changed

changelog.d/14409.bugfix

+1
Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
@@ -0,0 +1 @@
1+
Fix PostgreSQL sometimes using table scans for queries against the `event_search` table, taking a long time and a large amount of IO.
Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,33 @@
1+
/* Copyright 2022 The Matrix.org Foundation C.I.C
2+
*
3+
* Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License");
4+
* you may not use this file except in compliance with the License.
5+
* You may obtain a copy of the License at
6+
*
7+
* http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
8+
*
9+
* Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software
10+
* distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS,
11+
* WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied.
12+
* See the License for the specific language governing permissions and
13+
* limitations under the License.
14+
*/
15+
16+
17+
-- By default the postgres statistics collector massively underestimates the
18+
-- number of distinct rooms in `event_search`, which can cause postgres to use
19+
-- table scans for queries for multiple rooms.
20+
--
21+
-- To work around this we can manually tell postgres the number of distinct rooms
22+
-- by setting `n_distinct` (a negative value here is the number of distinct values
23+
-- divided by the number of rows, so -0.01 means on average there are 100 rows per
24+
-- distinct value). We don't need a particularly accurate number here, as a) we just
25+
-- want it to always use index scans and b) our estimate is going to be better than the
26+
-- one made by the statistics collector.
27+
28+
ALTER TABLE event_search ALTER COLUMN room_id SET (n_distinct = -0.01);
29+
30+
-- Ideally we'd do an `ANALYZE event_search (room_id)` here so that
31+
-- the above gets picked up immediately, but that can take a bit of time so we
32+
-- rely on the autovacuum eventually getting run and doing that in the
33+
-- background for us.

0 commit comments

Comments
 (0)