On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 02:45:15PM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 04:15:59PM +0200, johannes graën wrote:
> > Hi Pavel, *,
> >
> > you were right with ANALYZing the DB first. However, even after doing
> > so, I frequently see Seq Scans where an index was used before. This
> > usually cooccurs with parallelization and looked different before
> > upgrading to 10. I can provide an example for 10 [1], but I cannot
> > generate a query plan for 9.6 anymore.
> >
> > Any ideas what makes the new version more seqscanny?
>
> Is it because max_parallel_workers_per_gather now defaults to 2 ?
>
> BTW, I would tentatively expect a change in default to be documented in the
> release notes but can't see that it's.
> 77cd477c4ba885cfa1ba67beaa82e06f2e182b85
Oops, you are correct. The PG 10 release notes, which I wrote, should
have mentioned this. :-(
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/10/static/release-10.html
--
Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Ancient Roman grave inscription +
