On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 5:21 PM Fahiz Mohamed wrote:
> There is a slight different in both instance’s data. Inastanbce 1 contains
> latest data and instance 2 consists of data which is 3 weeks older than
> instance 1.
>
In knowing where to look for differences in performance, there is a big
There is a slight different in both instance’s data. Inastanbce 1 contains
latest data and instance 2 consists of data which is 3 weeks older than
instance 1.
Following are the number of rows in each table in both instances
Instance 1
alf_node : 96493129 rows
alf_node_properties : 455599288
On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 3:40 AM Fahiz Mohamed wrote:
> Thank you very much for your prompt responses.
>
> I have analysed more regarding this and found the long running query.
>
> I ran "explain analyse" on this query and I got following result. (We have
> 2 identical DB instances and they
This seems beyond me at this point, but I am curious if you also
vacuumed alf_node_properties and alf_node tables and checked when they last
got (auto)vacuumed/analyzed. With default configs for autovacuum parameters
and tables with that many rows, they don't qualify for autovacuum very
often. I
Le mar. 10 déc. 2019 à 20:48, Jeff Janes a écrit :
> On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 11:43 AM Guillaume Lelarge
> wrote:
>
> This query uses the column statistics to estimate bloat. AFAIK, json
>> columns don't have statistics, so the estimation can't be relied on (for
>> this specific table at least).
