> > Hi there, fellow experts! > > > I need an advice with query that became slower after 9.3 to 9.6 > migration. > > > First of all, I'm from the dev team. > > > Before migration, we (programmers) made some modifications on query > bring it's average time from 8s to 2-3s. > > > As this query is the most executed on our system (it builds the user > panel to work), every bit that we can squeeze from it will be nice. > > > Now, after server migration to 9.6 we're experiencing bad times with > this query again. > > > Unfortunately, I don't have the old query plain (9.3 version) to show > you, but in the actual version (9.6) I can see some buffers written > that tells me that something is wrong. > > > Our server has 250GB of memory available, but the database team says > that they can't do nothing to make this query better. I'm not sure, > as some buffers are written on disk. > > > Any tip/help will be much appreciated (even from the query side). > > > Thank you! > > > The query plan: https://explain.depesz.com/s/5KMn > > > Note: I tried to add index on kilo_victor table already, but > Postgresql still thinks that is better to do a seq scan. > >
I dont know about the data distribution in kilo_victor, but maybe a partial index ON kilo_victor (juliet_romeo) where not xray_seven ? Gerardo -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
