有人可以帮我比较这些查询,并解释为什么PostgreSQL查询在不到2000毫秒的时间内执行,而MongoDB聚合查询需要近9000毫秒,有时甚至高达130K毫秒?
PostgreSQL 9.3.2 on x86_64-apple-darwin, compiled by i686-apple-darwin11-llvm-gcc-4.2 (GCC) 4.2.1 (Based on Apple Inc. build 5658) (LLVM build 2336.9.00), 64-bit
PostgreSQL查询
SELECT locomotive_id,
SUM(date_trunc('second', datetime) - date_trunc('second', prevDatetime)) AS utilization_time
FROM bpkdmp
WHERE datetime >= '2013-7-26 00:00:00.0000'
AND datetime <= '2013-7-26 23:59:59.9999'
GROUP BY locomotive_id
order by locomotive_id
MongoDB查询
db.bpkdmp.aggregate([
{
$match : {
datetime : { $gte : new Date(2013,6,26, 0, 0, 0, 0), $lt : new Date(2013,6,26, 23, 59, 59, 9999) }
}
},
{
$project: {
locomotive_id : "$locomotive_id",
loco_time : { $subtract : ["$datetime", "$prevdatetime"] },
}
},
{
$group : {
_id : "$locomotive_id",
utilization_time : { $sum : "$loco_time" }
}
},
{
$sort : {_id : 1}
}
])
PostgreSQL表和MongoDB集合都在datetime:1和locomotive_id:1上建立索引。
这些查询正在具有2TB混合驱动器和16GB内存的iMac上进行测试。在具有8GB内存和256GB SSD的Windows 7计算机上,我收到了可比的结果。
谢谢!
**更新:我的问题发布后,我正在发布EXPLAIN(气泡,分析)结果
"Sort (cost=146036.84..146036.88 rows=19 width=24) (actual time=2182.443..2182.457 rows=152 loops=1)"
" Sort Key: locomotive_id"
" Sort Method: quicksort Memory: 36kB"
" Buffers: shared hit=13095"
" -> HashAggregate (cost=146036.24..146036.43 rows=19 width=24) (actual time=2182.144..2182.360 rows=152 loops=1)"
" Buffers: shared hit=13095"
" -> Bitmap Heap Scan on bpkdmp (cost=12393.84..138736.97 rows=583942 width=24) (actual time=130.409..241.087 rows=559529 loops=1)"
" Recheck Cond: ((datetime >= '2013-07-26 00:00:00'::timestamp without time zone) AND (datetime <= '2013-07-26 23:59:59.9999'::timestamp without time zone))"
" Buffers: shared hit=13095"
" -> Bitmap Index Scan on bpkdmp_datetime_ix (cost=0.00..12247.85 rows=583942 width=0) (actual time=127.707..127.707 rows=559529 loops=1)"
" Index Cond: ((datetime >= '2013-07-26 00:00:00'::timestamp without time zone) AND (datetime <= '2013-07-26 23:59:59.9999'::timestamp without time zone))"
" Buffers: shared hit=1531"
"Total runtime: 2182.620 ms"
**更新:Mongo解释:
从MongoDB解释
{
"serverPipeline" : [
{
"query" : {
"datetime" : {
"$gte" : ISODate("2013-07-26T04:00:00Z"),
"$lt" : ISODate("2013-07-27T04:00:08.999Z")
}
},
"projection" : {
"datetime" : 1,
"locomotive_id" : 1,
"prevdatetime" : 1,
"_id" : 1
},
"cursor" : {
"cursor" : "BtreeCursor datetime_1",
"isMultiKey" : false,
"n" : 559572,
"nscannedObjects" : 559572,
"nscanned" : 559572,
"nscannedObjectsAllPlans" : 559572,
"nscannedAllPlans" : 559572,
"scanAndOrder" : false,
"indexOnly" : false,
"nYields" : 1,
"nChunkSkips" : 0,
"millis" : 988,
"indexBounds" : {
"datetime" : [
[
ISODate("2013-07-26T04:00:00Z"),
ISODate("2013-07-27T04:00:08.999Z")
]
]
},
"allPlans" : [
{
"cursor" : "BtreeCursor datetime_1",
"n" : 559572,
"nscannedObjects" : 559572,
"nscanned" : 559572,
"indexBounds" : {
"datetime" : [
[
ISODate("2013-07-26T04:00:00Z"),
ISODate("2013-07-27T04:00:08.999Z")
]
]
}
}
],
"oldPlan" : {
"cursor" : "BtreeCursor datetime_1",
"indexBounds" : {
"datetime" : [
[
ISODate("2013-07-26T04:00:00Z"),
ISODate("2013-07-27T04:00:08.999Z")
]
]
}
},
"server" : "Michaels-iMac.local:27017"
}
},
{
"$project" : {
"locomotive_id" : "$locomotive_id",
"loco_time" : {
"$subtract" : [
"$datetime",
"$prevdatetime"
]
}
}
},
{
"$group" : {
"_id" : "$locomotive_id",
"utilization_time" : {
"$sum" : "$loco_time"
}
}
},
{
"$sort" : {
"sortKey" : {
"_id" : 1
}
}
}
],
"ok" : 1
}
...以及有关MongoDB计划的信息?docs.mongodb.org/manual/reference/method/cursor.explain
—
Craig Ringer
尽管很难逃避NoSQL的炒作,但传统的RDBMS每天都有更好的,更成熟的聚合。NoSQL数据库针对主键索引和按键检索进行了优化,而不是针对此类查询。
—
Alexandros
我可能遗漏了一些细节。每个文档中有200多个字段。这是从PostgreSQL数据库直接导入的。许多字段值为空。我记得MongoDB并不是特别喜欢空值。我再次导入了相关数据的<20个字段,并且查询性能更好。我在具有8GB内存和较慢的HD的计算机上获得<3000ms。我将很快在功能更强大的计算机上开始新的测试。
—
Mike A
Mongodb索引的性能
—
rubish
{datetime: 1, prevdatetime: 1}
应优于当前索引,因为mongodb会过滤datetime和prevdatetime。这样可以减少需要扫描的文档数量。
EXPLAIN (BUFFERS, ANALYZE)
请显示输出。另外,PostgreSQL版本。(我已投票决定将其移至dba.SE)