info: To determine the technical writer assigned to the Stage/Group associated with this page, see https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/product/ux/technical-writing/#assignments
The following document gives a few ideas for improving the pagination (sorting) performance. These apply both on [offset](pagination_guidelines.md#offset-pagination) and [keyset](pagination_guidelines.md#keyset-pagination) paginations.
## Tie-breaker column
When ordering the columns it's advised to order by distinct columns only. Consider the following example:
If we order by `created_at`, the result would likely depend on how the records are located on the disk.
Using the tie-breaker column is advised when the data is exposed via a well defined interface and its consumed
by an automated process, such as an API. Without the tie-breaker column, the order of the rows could change
(data is re-imported) which could cause problems that are hard to debug, such as:
- An integration comparing the rows to determine changes breaks.
- E-tag cache values change, which requires a complete re-download.
```sql
SELECT issues.* FROM issues ORDER BY created_at;
```
We can fix this by adding a second column to `ORDER BY`:
```sql
SELECT issues.* FROM issues ORDER BY created_at, id;
```
This change makes the order distinct so we have "stable" sorting.
NOTE:
To make the query efficient, we need an index covering both columns: `(created_at, id)`. The order of the columns **should match** the columns in the `ORDER BY` clause.
## Ordering by joined table column
Oftentimes, we want to order the data by a column on a joined database table. The following example orders `issues` records by the `first_mentioned_in_commit_at` metric column:
```sql
SELECT issues.* FROM issues
INNER JOIN issue_metrics on issue_metrics.issue_id=issues.id
WHERE issues.project_id = 2
ORDER BY issue_metrics.first_mentioned_in_commit_at DESC, issues.id DESC
With PostgreSQL version 11, the planner first looks up all issues matching the `project_id` filter and then join all `issue_metrics` rows. The ordering of rows happens in memory. In case the joined relation is always present (1:1 relationship), the database reads `N * 2` rows where N is the number of rows matching the `project_id` filter.
In this particular case there is no simple way (like index creation) to improve the query. We might think that changing the `issues.id` column to `issue_metrics.issue_id` helps, however, this likely makes the query perform worse because it might force the database to process all rows in the `issue_metrics` table.
One idea to address this problem is denormalization. Adding the `project_id` column to the `issue_metrics` table makes the filtering and sorting efficient:
The query requires an index on `issue_metrics` table with the following column configuration: `(project_id, first_mentioned_in_commit_at DESC, issue_id DESC)`.
Filtering by a project is a very common use case since we have many features on the project level. Examples: merge requests, issues, boards, iterations.
To make the base query efficient, there is usually a database index covering the `project_id` column. This significantly reduces the number of rows the database needs to scan. Without the index, the whole `issues` table would be read (full table scan) by the database.
Since `project_id` is a foreign key, we might have the following index available:
```sql
"index_issues_on_project_id" btree (project_id)
```
GitLab 13.11 has the following index definition on the `issues` table:
Unfortunately, there is no efficient way to sort and paginate on the group level. The database query execution time increases based on the number of records in the group.
Things get worse when group level actually means group and its subgroups. To load the first page, the database looks up the group hierarchy, finds all projects, and then looks up all issues.
The main reason behind the inefficient queries on the group level is the way our database schema is designed; our core domain models are associated with a project, and projects are associated with groups. This doesn't mean that the database structure is bad, it's just in a well-normalized form that is not optimized for efficient group level queries. We might need to look into denormalization in the long term.
-> Index Only Scan using index_projects_on_namespace_id_and_id on projects (cost=0.44..3.77 rows=19 width=4) (actual time=0.077..1.057 rows=270 loops=1)
Index Cond: (namespace_id = 9970)
Heap Fetches: 25
-> Index Scan using index_issues_on_project_id_and_iid on issues (cost=0.56..559.28 rows=448 width=1300) (actual time=0.101..4.781 rows=657 loops=270)
Index Cond: (project_id = projects.id)
Planning Time: 12.281 ms
Execution Time: 1472.391 ms
(12 rows)
```
#### Columns in the same database table
Filtering by columns located in the same database table can be improved with an index. In case we want to support filtering by the `state_id` column, we can add the following index:
In the `issues` table, we have a boolean field (`confidential`) that marks an issue confidential. This makes the issue invisible (filtered out) for non-member users.
Example SQL query:
```sql
SELECT "issues".*
FROM "issues"
WHERE "issues"."project_id" = 5
AND "issues"."confidential" = FALSE
ORDER BY "issues"."iid" ASC
LIMIT 20
OFFSET 0
```
We might be tempted to add an index on `project_id`, `confidential`, and `iid` to improve the database query, however, in this case it's probably unnecessary. Based on the data distribution in the table, confidential issues are rare. Filtering them out does not make the database query significantly slower. The database might read a few extra rows, the performance difference might not even be visible to the end-user.
On the other hand, if we implemented a special filter where we only show confidential issues, we need the index. Finding 20 confidential issues might require the database to scan hundreds of rows or, in the worst case, all issues in the project.
Be aware of the data distribution and the table access patterns (how features work) when introducing a new database index. Sampling production data might be necessary to make the right decision.
#### Columns in a different database table
Example: filtering issues in a project by an assignee
```ruby
project = Project.find(5)
project
.issues
.joins(:issue_assignees)
.where(issue_assignees: { user_id: 10 })
.order(:iid)
.page(1)
.per(20)
```
```sql
SELECT "issues".*
FROM "issues"
INNER JOIN "issue_assignees" ON "issue_assignees"."issue_id" = "issues"."id"
WHERE "issues"."project_id" = 5
AND "issue_assignees"."user_id" = 10
ORDER BY "issues"."iid" ASC
LIMIT 20
OFFSET 0
```
Example database (oversimplified) execution plan:
1. The database parses the SQL query and detects the `JOIN`.
1. The database splits the query into two subqueries.
-`SELECT "issue_assignees".* FROM "issue_assignees" WHERE "issue_assignees"."user_id" = 10`
-`SELECT "issues".* FROM "issues" WHERE "issues"."project_id" = 5`
1. The database estimates the number of rows and the costs to run these queries.
1. The database executes the cheapest query first.
-> Index Scan using index_issue_assignees_on_user_id on issue_assignees (cost=0.44..81.37 rows=92 width=4) (actual time=0.741..13.202 rows=215 loops=1)
Index Cond: (user_id = 4156052)
-> Index Scan using issues_pkey on issues (cost=0.56..3.58 rows=1 width=1300) (actual time=0.048..0.048 rows=1 loops=215)
The query looks up the `assignees` first, filtered by the `user_id` (`user_id = 4156052`) and it finds 215 rows. Using those 215 rows, the database looks up the 215 associated issue rows by the primary key. Notice that the filter on the `project_id` column is not backed by an index.
In most cases, we are lucky that the joined relation does not return too many rows, therefore, we end up with a relatively efficient database query that accesses a small number of rows. As the database grows, these queries might start to behave differently. Let's say the number `issue_assignees` records for a particular user is very high, in the millions. This join query does not perform well, and it likely times out.
There is no easy way to fix these problems. Denormalization of data could help significantly, however, it has also negative effects (data duplication and keeping the data up to date).
- Add `project_id` column to the `issue_assignees` table so when performing the `JOIN`, the extra `project_id` filter further filters the rows. The sorting likely happens in memory:
INNER JOIN "issue_assignees" ON "issue_assignees"."issue_id" = "issues"."id"
WHERE "issues"."project_id" = 5
AND "issue_assignees"."user_id" = 10
AND "issue_assignees"."project_id" = 5
ORDER BY "issues"."iid" ASC
LIMIT 20
OFFSET 0
```
- Add the `iid` column to the `issue_assignees` table. Notice that the `ORDER BY` column is different and the `project_id` filter is gone from the `issues` table:
```sql
SELECT "issues".*
FROM "issues"
INNER JOIN "issue_assignees" ON "issue_assignees"."issue_id" = "issues"."id"
WHERE "issue_assignees"."user_id" = 10
AND "issue_assignees"."project_id" = 5
ORDER BY "issue_assignees"."iid" ASC
LIMIT 20
OFFSET 0
```
The query now performs well for any number of `issue_assignees` records, however, we pay a very high price for it:
- Two columns are duplicated which increases the database size.
- We need to keep the two columns in sync.
- We need more indexes on the `issue_assignees` table to support the query.
- The new database query is very specific to the assignee search and needs complex backend code to build it.
- If the assignee is filtered by the user, then order by a different column, remove the `project_id` filter, etc.
NOTE:
Currently we're not doing these kinds of denormalization at GitLab.
