Good morning all, We have a problem with performance after upgrading from 9.3 to 9.6 where certain queries take 9 times longer to run. On our initial attempt to upgrade, we noticed the system as a whole was taking longer to run through normal daily processes. The query with the largest run time was picked to act as a measuring stick.
We are using the staging server to test the upgrade. It has two 1.3TB partitions, each of which holds a copy of the near 1TB database. The active staging 9.3 database is on one of the partitions while a copy was made onto the other. A second instance of 9.3 was set up to verify the copy was successful and some performace tests were done, then upgraded to 9.6 via pg_upgrade. The same performance tests were done and this is where the 9 time slower number comes from. OS Ubuntu 14.04.4 PG9.3 is 9.3.19-1.pgdg14.04+1 from http://apt.postgresql.org/pub/repos/apt/ PG9.6 is 9.6.5-1.pgdg14.04+2 from same. The server has 24 cores and 64GB RAM. Data drives are spinning platter in raid10 - not ssd. upgrade steps: * Ran rsync (excluding the xlog folder) from the active 9.3 partition to the unused partition while 9.3 was still running. * Once initial rsync completed, shut down 9.3 and reran the rsync command without the exclude. * Once second rsync completed, restarted 9.3 and left it alone. * Copied the active 9.3 configuration files into a new /etc/postgresql/9.3/ folder so we could test before/after numbers. Changed the config to point to the appropriate data/log/etc folders/files/port. * Started second 9.3 instance. * Altered the few foreign servers to account for the second instance's port. * Ran some arbitrary queries to check performance. * Installed 9.6 via apt * Created a 9.6 instance with its data directory on the same partition as the newely cloned 9.3 instance. * Ran pg_upgrade with --link option (includes running --check and compiling/installing postgis) * Copied the config from 9.3 and made minimal changes. Renamed log files, changed folders, removed checkpoint_segments is about it. * Started the 9.6 instance and was able to do arbitrary queries. * Ran the upgrade-suggested vacuumdb command on all databases to generate statistics At that point, the database should be ready to use. Running the same set of arbitrary queries that were run on 9.3 yielded much worse performance, though. The data is broken out by dealers containing customers owning vehicles. The arbitrary queries pull data from 8 tables (really 6 large[millions of records] and 2 smaller[hundreds] tables) to populate a new table via "select [fields] into [new table]". Twenty different dealers were used for testing meaning twenty of these queries. The system which runs these queries has 12 workers meaning up to 12 of these queries can be running concurrently. While the workers were offline, all twenty were queued up and then the workers activated. For each test, the order of the dealers was the same. That order was a mix of small/large dealers mixed - not exactly high,low,high; more like a few large then a few small. The run time for 9.3 was 21m9s and 9.6 was 3h18m25s. Each test was done while the other database was idle - htop showed little to no activity before each test started. perf reports (converted to flamegraph via https://github.com/brendangregg/FlameGraph) for the 9.6 test show about a 1/3 of the processor usage similar to that of graph for 9.3. The other 2/3 is still within the postgres process but starts with '[unknown]' and has 'connect', 'socket', and 'close' as the next call in the chain. I have not been able to figure out what postgres is doing to make these calls. Changing the configuration based on pgtune (command line version 0.9.3-2) did not make much change. The online pgtune at http://pgtune.leopard.in.ua/ had just a couple differences in settings I have yet to test. Main question is what the connect/socket/close calls in the perf output are and how to make them go away as they appear to be what is using up the added time. I'm hoping there is just a setting I've missed. Query plan for a small dealer on 9.6 run without anything else running on the server https://explain.depesz.com/s/z71u Planning time: 8.218 ms Execution time: 639319.525 ms Same query as run on 9.3 https://explain.depesz.com/s/gjN3 Total runtime: 272897.150 ms -- Thanks, Adam Torres