Re: [PERFORM] Different query plans on same servers
On 12/06/2011 09:00 PM, Tom Lane wrote: Mario Splivalo mario.spliv...@megafon.hr writes: I have 8.4.8 on producion and 8.4.9 on test, could that explain the difference in plans chosen? I'd wonder first if you have the same statistics settings on both. The big problem here is that the estimation of the join size is bad (8588 versus 0). Just an update here. I did downgrade postgres on testbox to 8.4.8 and now it's choosing bad plan there too. So we upgraded postgres on production server and the bad plan went away. We're preparing for upgrade to 9.1 now, we hope to offload some of the SELECTs to the slave server, we'll see how that will work. Thank you for your inputs! Mario -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
Re: [PERFORM] Different query plans on same servers
Mario Splivalo mario.spliv...@megafon.hr writes: I have 8.4.8 on producion and 8.4.9 on test, could that explain the difference in plans chosen? I'd wonder first if you have the same statistics settings on both. The big problem here is that the estimation of the join size is bad (8588 versus 0). regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
Re: [PERFORM] Different query plans on same servers
Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: I'd wonder first if you have the same statistics settings on both. The big problem here is that the estimation of the join size is bad (8588 versus 0). But both servers develop that estimate for the join size. I was wondering more about whether the costing factors were really the same: slow: - Nested Loop (cost=0.00..792824.51 rows=8588 width=275) (actual time=3269.997..3269.997 rows=0 loops=1) versus fast: - Hash Join (cost=857.00..31152.80 rows=8588 width=275) (actual time=37.968..37.968 rows=0 loops=1) The hash join path must look more expensive on the first machine, for some reason. Mario, could you post the result of running this query from both servers?: http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Server_Configuration -Kevin -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
Re: [PERFORM] Different query plans on same servers
Kevin Grittner kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov wrote: But both servers develop that estimate for the join size. [sigh] Those *were* both from the production server. Please show us the EXPLAIN ANALYZE from the other server. -Kevin -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
Re: [PERFORM] Different query plans on same servers
On 12/06/2011 09:00 PM, Tom Lane wrote: Mario Splivalo mario.spliv...@megafon.hr writes: I have 8.4.8 on producion and 8.4.9 on test, could that explain the difference in plans chosen? I'd wonder first if you have the same statistics settings on both. The big problem here is that the estimation of the join size is bad (8588 versus 0). They do, I guess. I did rsync postgres datadir from the prod server to the test server. The only difference is that prod server was a bit more loaded than the test server. Mario -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
Re: [PERFORM] Different query plans on same servers
On 12/06/2011 09:17 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote: The hash join path must look more expensive on the first machine, for some reason. Mario, could you post the result of running this query from both servers?: http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Server_Configuration Sure. Here is from the prod server: name | current_setting -+ version | PostgreSQL 8.4.8 on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, compiled by GCC gcc-4.3.real (Debian 4.3.2-1.1) 4.3.2, 64-bit checkpoint_segments | 64 default_statistics_target | 2000 effective_cache_size| 36GB external_pid_file | /var/run/postgresql/8.4-main.pid lc_collate | en_US.UTF-8 lc_ctype| en_US.UTF-8 listen_addresses| * log_autovacuum_min_duration | 0 log_checkpoints | on log_line_prefix | %t [%p]: [%l-1] [%d] log_min_duration_statement | 1s maintenance_work_mem| 256MB max_connections | 1500 max_stack_depth | 3MB port| 5432 server_encoding | UTF8 shared_buffers | 4GB statement_timeout | 30min temp_buffers| 4096 TimeZone| localtime track_activity_query_size | 2048 unix_socket_directory | /var/run/postgresql wal_buffers | 128MB work_mem| 64MB And here is from the test server: name| current_setting +-- version| PostgreSQL 8.4.9 on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, compiled by GCC gcc-4.4.real (Debian 4.4.5-8) 4.4.5, 64-bit checkpoint_segments| 64 default_statistics_target | 2000 effective_cache_size | 36GB external_pid_file | /var/run/postgresql/8.4-main.pid lc_collate | en_US.UTF-8 lc_ctype | en_US.UTF-8 listen_addresses | * log_connections| on log_disconnections | on log_line_prefix| %t [%p]: [%l-1] [%d] log_min_duration_statement | 0 maintenance_work_mem | 256MB max_connections| 40 max_stack_depth| 3MB port | 5432 server_encoding| UTF8 shared_buffers | 4GB ssl| on temp_buffers | 4096 TimeZone | localtime unix_socket_directory | /var/run/postgresql wal_buffers| 128MB work_mem | 64MB (24 rows) At the time of doing 'explain analyze' on the prod server there were cca 80 connections on the server. Mario -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
Re: [PERFORM] Different query plans on same servers
On 12/06/2011 09:29 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote: Kevin Grittner kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov wrote: But both servers develop that estimate for the join size. [sigh] Those *were* both from the production server. Please show us the EXPLAIN ANALYZE from the other server. Huh, right... missed that one. Here is the 'explain analyze' from the other server: QUERY PLAN -- Limit (cost=31531.75..31531.80 rows=21 width=275) (actual time=45.584..45.584 rows=0 loops=1) - Sort (cost=31531.75..31531.84 rows=36 width=275) (actual time=45.579..45.579 rows=0 loops=1) Sort Key: tubesite_object.pub_date Sort Method: quicksort Memory: 25kB - Hash Join (cost=866.34..31530.82 rows=36 width=275) (actual time=45.544..45.544 rows=0 loops=1) Hash Cond: (tubesite_object.id = tubesite_image.object_ptr_id) - Bitmap Heap Scan on tubesite_object (cost=606.11..31146.68 rows=9884 width=271) (actual time=6.861..37.497 rows=9905 loops=1) Recheck Cond: (site_id = 8) - Bitmap Index Scan on tubesite_object_site_id (cost=0.00..603.64 rows=9884 width=0) (actual time=4.792..4.792 rows=9905 loops=1) Index Cond: (site_id = 8) - Hash (cost=152.88..152.88 rows=8588 width=4) (actual time=3.816..3.816 rows=8588 loops=1) - Seq Scan on tubesite_image (cost=0.00..152.88 rows=8588 width=4) (actual time=0.003..1.740 rows=8588 loops=1) Total runtime: 45.798 ms This is also a query from the prod server, but without LIMIT: Sort (cost=31713.95..31735.42 rows=8588 width=275) (actual time=60.311..60.311 rows=0 loops=1) Sort Key: tubesite_object.pub_date Sort Method: quicksort Memory: 25kB - Hash Join (cost=857.00..31152.80 rows=8588 width=275) (actual time=60.255..60.255 rows=0 loops=1) Hash Cond: (tubesite_object.id = tubesite_image.object_ptr_id) - Bitmap Heap Scan on tubesite_object (cost=596.77..30685.30 rows=9711 width=271) (actual time=8.682..49.721 rows=9905 loops=1) Recheck Cond: (site_id = 8) - Bitmap Index Scan on tubesite_object_site_id (cost=0.00..594.34 rows=9711 width=0) (actual time=5.705..5.705 rows=9905 loops=1) Index Cond: (site_id = 8) - Hash (cost=152.88..152.88 rows=8588 width=4) (actual time=4.281..4.281 rows=8588 loops=1) - Seq Scan on tubesite_image (cost=0.00..152.88 rows=8588 width=4) (actual time=0.005..1.437 rows=8588 loops=1) Total runtime: 60.483 ms (12 rows) I will try to rsync prod database to 8.4.8 on test server tomorrow, and see what happens. Hopefully upgrade to 8.4.9 (or even 8.4.10 if Debian packages is by tomorrow) will solve the issue... Mario -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
