Merge branch 'docs/document-query-plans' into 'master'

Add documentation about reading query plans

See merge request gitlab-org/gitlab-ce!21199

doc/development/README.md

@@ -55,7 +55,13 @@ description: 'Learn how to contribute to GitLab.'
 - [Merge request performance guidelines](merge_request_performance_guidelines.md)
   for ensuring merge requests do not negatively impact GitLab performance
 
-## Databases guides
+## Database guides
+
+### Tooling
+
+- [Understanding EXPLAIN plans](understanding_explain_plans.md)
+- [explain.depesz.com](https://explain.depesz.com/) for visualising the output
+  of `EXPLAIN`
 
 ### Migrations
 

doc/development/understanding_explain_plans.md

+# Understanding EXPLAIN plans
+
+PostgreSQL allows you to obtain query plans using the `EXPLAIN` command. This
+command can be invaluable when trying to determine how a query will perform.
+You can use this command directly in your SQL query, as long as the query starts
+with it:
+
+```sql
+EXPLAIN
+SELECT COUNT(*)
+FROM projects
+WHERE visibility_level IN (0, 20);
+```
+
+When running this on GitLab.com, we are presented with the following output:
+
+```
+Aggregate  (cost=922411.76..922411.77 rows=1 width=8)
+  ->  Seq Scan on projects  (cost=0.00..908044.47 rows=5746914 width=0)
+        Filter: (visibility_level = ANY ('{0,20}'::integer[]))
+```
+
+When using _just_ `EXPLAIN`, PostgreSQL won't actually execute our query,
+instead it produces an _estimated_ execution plan based on the available
+statistics. This means the actual plan can differ quite a bit. Fortunately,
+PostgreSQL provides us with the option to execute the query as well. To do so,
+we need to use `EXPLAIN ANALYZE` instead of just `EXPLAIN`:
+
+```sql
+EXPLAIN ANALYZE
+SELECT COUNT(*)
+FROM projects
+WHERE visibility_level IN (0, 20);
+```
+
+This will produce:
+
+```
+Aggregate  (cost=922420.60..922420.61 rows=1 width=8) (actual time=3428.535..3428.535 rows=1 loops=1)
+  ->  Seq Scan on projects  (cost=0.00..908053.18 rows=5746969 width=0) (actual time=0.041..2987.606 rows=5746940 loops=1)
+        Filter: (visibility_level = ANY ('{0,20}'::integer[]))
+        Rows Removed by Filter: 65677
+Planning time: 2.861 ms
+Execution time: 3428.596 ms
+```
+
+As we can see this plan is quite different, and includes a lot more data. Let's
+discuss this step by step.
+
+Because `EXPLAIN ANALYZE` executes the query, care should be taken when using a
+query that will write data or might time out. If the query modifies data,
+consider wrapping it in a transaction that rolls back automatically like so:
+
+```sql
+BEGIN;
+EXPLAIN ANALYZE
+DELETE FROM users WHERE id = 1;
+ROLLBACK;
+```
+
+The `EXPLAIN` command also takes additional options, such as `BUFFERS`:
+
+```sql
+EXPLAIN (ANALYZE, BUFFERS)
+SELECT COUNT(*)
+FROM projects
+WHERE visibility_level IN (0, 20);
+```
+
+This will then produce:
+
+```
+Aggregate  (cost=922420.60..922420.61 rows=1 width=8) (actual time=3428.535..3428.535 rows=1 loops=1)
+  Buffers: shared hit=208846
+  ->  Seq Scan on projects  (cost=0.00..908053.18 rows=5746969 width=0) (actual time=0.041..2987.606 rows=5746940 loops=1)
+        Filter: (visibility_level = ANY ('{0,20}'::integer[]))
+        Rows Removed by Filter: 65677
+        Buffers: shared hit=208846
+Planning time: 2.861 ms
+Execution time: 3428.596 ms
+```
+
+For more information, refer to the official [EXPLAIN
+documentation](https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/sql-explain.html).
+
+## Nodes
+
+Every query plan consists of nodes. Nodes can be nested, and are executed from
+the inside out. This means that the innermost node is executed before an outer
+node. This can be best thought of as nested function calls, returning their
+results as they unwind. For example, a plan starting with an `Aggregate`
+followed by a `Nested Loop`, followed by an `Index Only scan` can be thought of
+as the following Ruby code:
+
+```ruby
+aggregate(
+  nested_loop(
+    index_only_scan()
+    index_only_scan()
+  )
+)
+```
+
+Nodes are indicated using a `->` followed by the type of node taken. For
+example:
+
+```
+Aggregate  (cost=922411.76..922411.77 rows=1 width=8)
+  ->  Seq Scan on projects  (cost=0.00..908044.47 rows=5746914 width=0)
+        Filter: (visibility_level = ANY ('{0,20}'::integer[]))
+```
+
+Here the first node executed is `Seq scan on projects`. The `Filter:` is an
+additional filter applied to the results of the node. A filter is very similar
+to Ruby's `Array#select`: it takes the input rows, applies the filter, and
+produces a new list of rows. Once the node is done, we perform the `Aggregate`
+above it.
+
+Nested nodes will look like this:
+
+```
+Aggregate  (cost=176.97..176.98 rows=1 width=8) (actual time=0.252..0.252 rows=1 loops=1)
+  Buffers: shared hit=155
+  ->  Nested Loop  (cost=0.86..176.75 rows=87 width=0) (actual time=0.035..0.249 rows=36 loops=1)
+        Buffers: shared hit=155
+        ->  Index Only Scan using users_pkey on users users_1  (cost=0.43..4.95 rows=87 width=4) (actual time=0.029..0.123 rows=36 loops=1)
+              Index Cond: (id < 100)
+              Heap Fetches: 0
+        ->  Index Only Scan using users_pkey on users  (cost=0.43..1.96 rows=1 width=4) (actual time=0.003..0.003 rows=1 loops=36)
+              Index Cond: (id = users_1.id)
+              Heap Fetches: 0
+Planning time: 2.585 ms
+Execution time: 0.310 ms
+```
+
+Here we first perform two separate "Index Only" scans, followed by performing a
+"Nested Loop" on the result of these two scans.
+
+## Node statistics
+
+Each node in a plan has a set of associated statistics, such as the cost, the
+number of rows produced, the number of loops performed, and more. For example:
+
+```
+Seq Scan on projects  (cost=0.00..908044.47 rows=5746914 width=0)
+```
+
+Here we can see that our cost ranges from `0.00..908044.47` (we'll cover this in
+a moment), and we estimate (since we're using `EXPLAIN` and not `EXPLAIN
+ANALYZE`) a total of 5,746,914 rows to be produced by this node. The `width`
+statistics describes the estimated width of each row, in bytes.
+
+The `costs` field specifies how expensive a node was. The cost is measured in
+arbitrary units determined by the query planner's cost parameters. What
+influences the costs depends on a variety of settings, such as `seq_page_cost`,
+`cpu_tuple_cost`, and various others.
+The format of the costs field is as follows:
+
+```
+STARTUP COST..TOTAL COST
+```
+
+The startup cost states how expensive it was to start the node, with the total
+cost describing how expensive the entire node was. In general: the greater the
+values, the more expensive the node.
+
+When using `EXPLAIN ANALYZE`, these statistics will also include the actual time
+(in milliseconds) spent, and other runtime statistics (e.g. the actual number of
+produced rows):
+
+```
+Seq Scan on projects  (cost=0.00..908053.18 rows=5746969 width=0) (actual time=0.041..2987.606 rows=5746940 loops=1)
+```
+
+Here we can see we estimated 5,746,969 rows to be returned, but in reality we
+returned 5,746,940 rows. We can also see that _just_ this sequential scan took
+2.98 seconds to run.
+
+Using `EXPLAIN (ANALYZE, BUFFERS)` will also give us information about the
+number of rows removed by a filter, the number of buffers used, and more. For
+example:
+
+```
+Seq Scan on projects  (cost=0.00..908053.18 rows=5746969 width=0) (actual time=0.041..2987.606 rows=5746940 loops=1)
+  Filter: (visibility_level = ANY ('{0,20}'::integer[]))
+  Rows Removed by Filter: 65677
+  Buffers: shared hit=208846
+```
+
+Here we can see that our filter has to remove 65,677 rows, and that we use
+208,846 buffers. Each buffer in PostgreSQL is 8 KB (8192 bytes), meaning our
+above node uses *1.6 GB of buffers*. That's a lot!
+
+## Node types
+
+There are quite a few different types of nodes, so we only cover some of the
+more common ones here.
+
+A full list of all the available nodes and their descriptions can be found in
+the [PostgreSQL source file
+"plannodes.h"](https://github.com/postgres/postgres/blob/master/src/include/nodes/plannodes.h)
+
+### Seq Scan
+
+A sequential scan over (a chunk of) a database table. This is like using
+`Array#each`, but on a database table. Sequential scans can be quite slow when
+retrieving lots of rows, so it's best to avoid these for large tables.
+
+### Index Only Scan
+
+A scan on an index that did not require fetching anything from the table. In
+certain cases an index only scan may still fetch data from the table, in this
+case the node will include a `Heap Fetches:` statistic.
+
+### Index Scan
+
+A scan on an index that required retrieving some data from the table.
+
+### Bitmap Index Scan and Bitmap Heap scan
+
+Bitmap scans fall between sequential scans and index scans. These are typically
+used when we would read too much data from an index scan, but too little to
+perform a sequential scan. A bitmap scan uses what is known as a [bitmap
+index](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitmap_index) to perform its work.
+
+The [source code of PostgreSQL](https://github.com/postgres/postgres/blob/1c2cb2744bf3d8ad751cd5cf3b347f10f48492b3/src/include/nodes/plannodes.h#L446-L457)
+states the following on bitmap scans:
+
+> Bitmap Index Scan delivers a bitmap of potential tuple locations; it does not
+> access the heap itself. The bitmap is used by an ancestor Bitmap Heap Scan
+> node, possibly after passing through intermediate Bitmap And and/or Bitmap Or
+> nodes to combine it with the results of other Bitmap Index Scans.
+
+### Limit
+
+Applies a `LIMIT` on the input rows.
+
+### Sort
+
+Sorts the input rows as specified using an `ORDER BY` statement.
+
+### Nested Loop
+
+A nested loop will execute its child nodes for every row produced by a node that
+precedes it. For example:
+
+```
+->  Nested Loop  (cost=0.86..176.75 rows=87 width=0) (actual time=0.035..0.249 rows=36 loops=1)
+      Buffers: shared hit=155
+      ->  Index Only Scan using users_pkey on users users_1  (cost=0.43..4.95 rows=87 width=4) (actual time=0.029..0.123 rows=36 loops=1)
+            Index Cond: (id < 100)
+            Heap Fetches: 0
+      ->  Index Only Scan using users_pkey on users  (cost=0.43..1.96 rows=1 width=4) (actual time=0.003..0.003 rows=1 loops=36)
+            Index Cond: (id = users_1.id)
+            Heap Fetches: 0
+```
+
+Here the first child node (`Index Only Scan using users_pkey on users users_1`)
+produces 36 rows, and is executed once (`rows=36 loops=1`). The next node
+produces 1 row (`rows=1`), but is repeated 36 times (`loops=36`). This is
+because the previous node produced 36 rows.
+
+This means that nested loops can quickly slow the query down if the various
+child nodes keep producing many rows.
+
+## Optimising queries
+
+With that out of the way, let's see how we can optimise a query. Let's use the
+following query as an example:
+
+```sql
+SELECT COUNT(*)
+FROM users
+WHERE twitter != '';
+```
+
+This query simply counts the number of users that have a Twitter profile set.
+Let's run this using `EXPLAIN (ANALYZE, BUFFERS)`:
+
+```sql
+EXPLAIN (ANALYZE, BUFFERS)
+SELECT COUNT(*)
+FROM users
+WHERE twitter != '';
+```
+
+This will produce the following plan:
+
+```
+Aggregate  (cost=845110.21..845110.22 rows=1 width=8) (actual time=1271.157..1271.158 rows=1 loops=1)
+  Buffers: shared hit=202662
+  ->  Seq Scan on users  (cost=0.00..844969.99 rows=56087 width=0) (actual time=0.019..1265.883 rows=51833 loops=1)
+        Filter: ((twitter)::text <> ''::text)
+        Rows Removed by Filter: 2487813
+        Buffers: shared hit=202662
+Planning time: 0.390 ms
+Execution time: 1271.180 ms
+```
+
+From this query plan we can see the following:
+
+1. We need to perform a sequential scan on the `users` table.
+1. This sequential scan filters out 2,487,813 rows using a `Filter`.
+1. We use 202,622 buffers, which equals 1.58 GB of memory.
+1. It takes us 1.2 seconds to do all of this.
+
+Considering we are just counting users, that's quite expensive!
+
+Before we start making any changes, let's see if there are any existing indexes
+on the `users` table that we might be able to use. We can obtain this
+information by running `\d users` in a `psql` console, then scrolling down to
+the `Indexes:` section:
+
+```
+Indexes:
+    "users_pkey" PRIMARY KEY, btree (id)
+    "users_confirmation_token_key" UNIQUE CONSTRAINT, btree (confirmation_token)
+    "users_email_key" UNIQUE CONSTRAINT, btree (email)
+    "users_reset_password_token_key" UNIQUE CONSTRAINT, btree (reset_password_token)
+    "index_on_users_lower_email" btree (lower(email::text))
+    "index_on_users_lower_username" btree (lower(username::text))
+    "index_on_users_name_lower" btree (lower(name::text))
+    "index_users_on_admin" btree (admin)
+    "index_users_on_created_at" btree (created_at)
+    "index_users_on_email_trigram" gin (email gin_trgm_ops)
+    "index_users_on_feed_token" btree (feed_token)
+    "index_users_on_ghost" btree (ghost)
+    "index_users_on_incoming_email_token" btree (incoming_email_token)
+    "index_users_on_name" btree (name)
+    "index_users_on_name_trigram" gin (name gin_trgm_ops)
+    "index_users_on_state" btree (state)
+    "index_users_on_state_and_internal_attrs" btree (state) WHERE ghost <> true AND support_bot <> true
+    "index_users_on_support_bot" btree (support_bot)
+    "index_users_on_username" btree (username)
+    "index_users_on_username_trigram" gin (username gin_trgm_ops)
+```
+
+Here we can see there is no index on the `twitter` column, which means
+PostgreSQL has to perform a sequential scan in this case. Let's try to fix this
+by adding the following index:
+
+```sql
+CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY twitter_test ON users (twitter);
+```
+
+If we now re-run our query using `EXPLAIN (ANALYZE, BUFFERS)` we get the
+following plan:
+
+```
+Aggregate  (cost=61002.82..61002.83 rows=1 width=8) (actual time=297.311..297.312 rows=1 loops=1)
+  Buffers: shared hit=51854 dirtied=19
+  ->  Index Only Scan using twitter_test on users  (cost=0.43..60873.13 rows=51877 width=0) (actual time=279.184..293.532 rows=51833 loops=1)
+        Filter: ((twitter)::text <> ''::text)
+        Rows Removed by Filter: 2487830
+        Heap Fetches: 26037
+        Buffers: shared hit=51854 dirtied=19
+Planning time: 0.191 ms
+Execution time: 297.334 ms
+```
+
+Now it takes just under 300 milliseconds to get our data, instead of 1.2
+seconds. However, we still use 51,854 buffers, which is about 400 MB of memory.
+300 milliseconds is also quite slow for such a simple query. To understand why
+this query is still expensive, let's take a look at the following:
+
+```
+Index Only Scan using twitter_test on users  (cost=0.43..60873.13 rows=51877 width=0) (actual time=279.184..293.532 rows=51833 loops=1)
+  Filter: ((twitter)::text <> ''::text)
+  Rows Removed by Filter: 2487830
+```
+
+We start with an index only scan on our index, but we somehow still apply a
+`Filter` that filters out 2,487,830 rows. Why is that? Well, let's look at how
+we created the index:
+
+```sql
+CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY twitter_test ON users (twitter);
+```
+
+We simply told PostgreSQL to index all possible values of the `twitter` column,
+even empty strings. Our query in turn uses `WHERE twitter != ''`. This means
+that the index does improve things, as we don't need to do a sequential scan,
+but we may still encounter empty strings. This means PostgreSQL _has_ to apply a
+Filter on the index results to get rid of those values.
+
+Fortunately, we can improve this even further using "partial indexes". Partial
+indexes are indexes with a `WHERE` condition that is applied when indexing data.
+For example:
+
+```sql
+CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY some_index ON users (email) WHERE id < 100
+```
+
+This index would only index the `email` value of rows that match `WHERE id <
+100`. We can use partial indexes to change our Twitter index to the following:
+
+```sql
+CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY twitter_test ON users (twitter) WHERE twitter != '';
+```
+
+Once created, if we run our query again we will be given the following plan:
+
+```
+Aggregate  (cost=1608.26..1608.27 rows=1 width=8) (actual time=19.821..19.821 rows=1 loops=1)
+  Buffers: shared hit=44036
+  ->  Index Only Scan using twitter_test on users  (cost=0.41..1479.71 rows=51420 width=0) (actual time=0.023..15.514 rows=51833 loops=1)
+        Heap Fetches: 1208
+        Buffers: shared hit=44036
+Planning time: 0.123 ms
+Execution time: 19.848 ms
+```
+
+That's _a lot_ better! Now it only takes 20 milliseconds to get the data, and we
+only use about 344 MB of buffers (instead of the original 1.58 GB). The reason
+this works is that now PostgreSQL no longer needs to apply a `Filter`, as the
+index only contains `twitter` values that are not empty.
+
+Keep in mind that you shouldn't just add partial indexes every time you want to
+optimise a query. Every index has to be updated for every write, and they may
+require quite a bit of space, depending on the amount of indexed data. As a
+result, first check if there are any existing indexes you may be able to reuse.
+If there aren't any, check if you can perhaps slightly change an existing one to
+fit both the existing and new queries. Only add a new index if none of the
+existing indexes can be used in any way.
+
+## Queries that can't be optimised
+
+Now that we have seen how to optimise a query, let's look at another query that
+we might not be able to optimise:
+
+```sql
+EXPLAIN (ANALYZE, BUFFERS)
+SELECT COUNT(*)
+FROM projects
+WHERE visibility_level IN (0, 20);
+```
+
+The output of `EXPLAIN (ANALYZE, BUFFERS)` is as follows:
+
+```
+Aggregate  (cost=922420.60..922420.61 rows=1 width=8) (actual time=3428.535..3428.535 rows=1 loops=1)
+  Buffers: shared hit=208846
+  ->  Seq Scan on projects  (cost=0.00..908053.18 rows=5746969 width=0) (actual time=0.041..2987.606 rows=5746940 loops=1)
+        Filter: (visibility_level = ANY ('{0,20}'::integer[]))
+        Rows Removed by Filter: 65677
+        Buffers: shared hit=208846
+Planning time: 2.861 ms
+Execution time: 3428.596 ms
+```
+
+Looking at the output we see the following Filter:
+
+```
+Filter: (visibility_level = ANY ('{0,20}'::integer[]))
+Rows Removed by Filter: 65677
+```
+
+Looking at the number of rows removed by the filter, we may be tempted to add an
+index on `projects.visibility_level` to somehow turn this Sequential scan +
+filter into an index-only scan.
+
+Unfortunately, doing so is unlikely to improve anything. Contrary to what some
+might believe, an index being present _does not guarantee_ that PostgreSQL will
+actually use it. For example, when doing a `SELECT * FROM projects` it is much
+cheaper to just scan the entire table, instead of using an index and then
+fetching data from the table. In such cases PostgreSQL may decide to not use an
+index.
+
+Second, let's think for a moment what our query does: it gets all projects with
+visibility level 0 or 20. In the above plan we can see this produces quite a lot
+of rows (5,745,940), but how much is that relative to the total? Let's find out
+by running the following query:
+
+```sql
+SELECT visibility_level, count(*) AS amount
+FROM projects
+GROUP BY visibility_level
+ORDER BY visibility_level ASC;
+```
+
+For GitLab.com this produces:
+
+```
+ visibility_level | amount
+------------------+---------
+                0 | 5071325
+               10 |   65678
+               20 |  674801
+```
+
+Here the total number of projects is 5,811,804, and 5,746,126 of those are of
+level 0 or 20. That's 98% of the entire table!
+
+So no matter what we do, this query will retrieve 98% of the entire table. Since
+most time is spent doing exactly that, there isn't really much we can do to
+improve this query, other than _not_ running it at all.
+
+What is important here is that while some may recommend to straight up add an
+index the moment you see a sequential scan, it is _much more important_ to first
+understand what your query does, how much data it retrieves, and so on. After
+all, you can not optimise something you do not understand.
+
+### Cardinality and selectivity
+
+Earlier we saw that our query had to retrieve 98% of the rows in the table.
+There are two terms commonly used for databases: cardinality, and selectivity.
+Cardinality refers to the number of unique values in a particular column in a
+table.
+
+Selectivity is the number of unique values produced by an operation (e.g. an
+index scan or filter), relative to the total number of rows. The higher the
+selectivity, the more likely PostgreSQL is able to use an index.
+
+In the above example, there are only 3 unique values: 0, 10, and 20. This means
+the cardinality is 3. The selectivity in turn is also very low: 0.0000003% (2 /
+5,811,804), because our `Filter` only filters using two values (`0` and `20`).
+With such a low selectivity value it's not surprising that PostgreSQL decides
+using an index is not worth it, because it would produce almost no unique rows.
+
+## Rewriting queries
+
+So the above query can't really be optimised as-is, or at least not much. But
+what if we slightly change the purpose of it? What if instead of retrieving all
+projects with `visibility_level` 0 or 20, we retrieve those that a user
+interacted with somehow?
+
+Fortunately, GitLab has an answer for this, and it's a table called
+`user_interacted_projects`. This table has the following schema:
+
+```
+Table "public.user_interacted_projects"
+   Column   |  Type   | Modifiers
+------------+---------+-----------
+ user_id    | integer | not null
+ project_id | integer | not null
+Indexes:
+    "index_user_interacted_projects_on_project_id_and_user_id" UNIQUE, btree (project_id, user_id)
+    "index_user_interacted_projects_on_user_id" btree (user_id)
+Foreign-key constraints:
+    "fk_rails_0894651f08" FOREIGN KEY (user_id) REFERENCES users(id) ON DELETE CASCADE
+    "fk_rails_722ceba4f7" FOREIGN KEY (project_id) REFERENCES projects(id) ON DELETE CASCADE
+```
+
+Let's rewrite our query to JOIN this table onto our projects, and get the
+projects for a specific user:
+
+```sql
+EXPLAIN ANALYZE
+SELECT COUNT(*)
+FROM projects
+INNER JOIN user_interacted_projects ON user_interacted_projects.project_id = projects.id
+WHERE projects.visibility_level IN (0, 20)
+AND user_interacted_projects.user_id = 1;
+```
+
+What we do here is the following:
+
+1. Get our projects.
+1. INNER JOIN `user_interacted_projects`, meaning we're only left with rows in
+   `projects` that have a corresponding row in `user_interacted_projects`.
+1. Limit this to the projects with `visibility_level` of 0 or 20, and to
+   projects that the user with ID 1 interacted with.
+
+If we run this query we get the following plan:
+
+```
+ Aggregate  (cost=871.03..871.04 rows=1 width=8) (actual time=9.763..9.763 rows=1 loops=1)
+   ->  Nested Loop  (cost=0.86..870.52 rows=203 width=0) (actual time=1.072..9.748 rows=143 loops=1)
+         ->  Index Scan using index_user_interacted_projects_on_user_id on user_interacted_projects  (cost=0.43..160.71 rows=205 width=4) (actual time=0.939..2.508 rows=145 loops=1)
+               Index Cond: (user_id = 1)
+         ->  Index Scan using projects_pkey on projects  (cost=0.43..3.45 rows=1 width=4) (actual time=0.049..0.050 rows=1 loops=145)
+               Index Cond: (id = user_interacted_projects.project_id)
+               Filter: (visibility_level = ANY ('{0,20}'::integer[]))
+               Rows Removed by Filter: 0
+ Planning time: 2.614 ms
+ Execution time: 9.809 ms
+```
+
+Here it only took us just under 10 milliseconds to get the data. We can also see
+we're retrieving far fewer projects:
+
+```
+Index Scan using projects_pkey on projects  (cost=0.43..3.45 rows=1 width=4) (actual time=0.049..0.050 rows=1 loops=145)
+  Index Cond: (id = user_interacted_projects.project_id)
+  Filter: (visibility_level = ANY ('{0,20}'::integer[]))
+  Rows Removed by Filter: 0
+```
+
+Here we see we perform 145 loops (`loops=145`), with every loop producing 1 row
+(`rows=1`). This is much less than before, and our query performs much better!
+
+If we look at the plan we also see our costs are very low:
+
+```
+Index Scan using projects_pkey on projects  (cost=0.43..3.45 rows=1 width=4) (actual time=0.049..0.050 rows=1 loops=145)
+```
+
+Here our cost is only 3.45, and it only takes us 0.050 milliseconds to do so.
+The next index scan is a bit more expensive:
+
+```
+Index Scan using index_user_interacted_projects_on_user_id on user_interacted_projects  (cost=0.43..160.71 rows=205 width=4) (actual time=0.939..2.508 rows=145 loops=1)
+```
+
+Here the cost is 160.71 (`cost=0.43..160.71`), taking about 2.5 milliseconds
+(based on the output of `actual time=....`).
+
+The most expensive part here is the "Nested Loop" that acts upon the result of
+these two index scans:
+
+```
+Nested Loop  (cost=0.86..870.52 rows=203 width=0) (actual time=1.072..9.748 rows=143 loops=1)
+```
+
+Here we had to perform 870.52 disk page fetches for 203 rows, 9.748
+milliseconds, producing 143 rows in a single loop.
+
+The key takeaway here is that sometimes you have to rewrite (parts of) a query
+to make it better. Sometimes that means having to slightly change your feature
+to accommodate for better performance.
+
+## What makes a bad plan
+
+This is a bit of a difficult question to answer, because the definition of "bad"
+is relative to the problem you are trying to solve. However, some patterns are
+best avoided in most cases, such as:
+
+* Sequential scans on large tables
+* Filters that remove a lot of rows
+* Performing a certain step (e.g. an index scan) that requires _a lot_ of
+  buffers (e.g. more than 512 MB for GitLab.com).
+
+As a general guideline, aim for a query that:
+
+1. Takes no more than 10 milliseconds. Our target time spent in SQL per request
+   is around 100 milliseconds, so every query should be as fast as possible.
+1. Does not use an excessive number of buffers, relative to the workload. For
+   example, retrieving ten rows shouldn't require 1 GB of buffers.
+1. Does not spend a long amount of time performing disk IO operations. The
+   setting `track_io_timing` must be enabled for this data to be included in the
+   output of `EXPLAIN ANALYZE`.
+1. Applies a `LIMIT` when retrieving rows without aggregating them, such as
+   `SELECT * FROM users`.
+1. Doesn't use a `Filter` to filter out too many rows, especially if the query
+   does not use a `LIMIT` to limit the number of returned rows. Filters can
+   usually be removed by adding a (partial) index.
+
+These are _guidelines_ and not hard requirements, as different needs may require
+different queries. The only _rule_ is that you _must always measure_ your query
+(preferably using a production-like database) using `EXPLAIN (ANALYZE, BUFFERS)`
+and related tools such as:
+
+* <https://explain.depesz.com/>
+* <http://tatiyants.com/postgres-query-plan-visualization/>
+
+GitLab employees can also use our chatops solution, available in Slack using the
+`/chatops` slash command. You can use chatops to get a query plan by running the
+following:
+
+```
+/chatops run explain SELECT COUNT(*) FROM projects WHERE visibility_level IN (0, 20)
+```
+
+Visualising the plan using <https://explain.depesz.com/> is also supported:
+
+```
+/chatops run explain --visual SELECT COUNT(*) FROM projects WHERE visibility_level IN (0, 20)
+```
+
+Quoting the query is not necessary.
+
+For more information about the available options, run:
+
+```
+/chatops run explain --help
+```