Re: [HACKERS] Performance issue with postgres9.6

2017-04-07 Thread Merlin Moncure
On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 12:54 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Tomas Vondra writes: >> On 04/07/2017 06:31 PM, Merlin Moncure wrote: >>> I think your math is off. Looking at your attachments, planning time >>> is 0.056ms, not 0.56ms. This is in no way

Re: [HACKERS] Performance issue with postgres9.6

2017-04-07 Thread Tom Lane
Tomas Vondra writes: > On 04/07/2017 06:31 PM, Merlin Moncure wrote: >> I think your math is off. Looking at your attachments, planning time >> is 0.056ms, not 0.56ms. This is in no way relevant to performance on >> the order of your measured TPS. How are you

Re: [HACKERS] Performance issue with postgres9.6

2017-04-07 Thread Tomas Vondra
On 04/07/2017 06:31 PM, Merlin Moncure wrote: On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 5:16 AM, Prakash Itnal wrote: Hello, We currently use psotgres 9.3 in our products. Recently we upgraded to postgres 9.6. But with 9.6 we have seen a drastic reduction in throughput. After analyzing

Re: [HACKERS] Performance issue with postgres9.6

2017-04-07 Thread Merlin Moncure
On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 5:16 AM, Prakash Itnal wrote: > Hello, > > We currently use psotgres 9.3 in our products. Recently we upgraded to > postgres 9.6. But with 9.6 we have seen a drastic reduction in throughput. > After analyzing carefully I found that "planner time" in

[HACKERS] Performance issue with postgres9.6

2017-04-07 Thread Prakash Itnal
Hello, We currently use psotgres 9.3 in our products. Recently we upgraded to postgres 9.6. But with 9.6 we have seen a drastic reduction in throughput. After analyzing carefully I found that "planner time" in 9.6 is very high. Below are the details: Scenario: 1 Create a table with 10 rows.