Why is the following query getting wrong estimation of rows?
I am using Postgresql 9.2.1 with default_statistics_target = 100.
I execute vacuum analyze each night.
explain analyze
SELECT
entity.id AS "Leads_id", entity.type AS "Leads_type" ,
leads.firstname AS "Leads_firstname",
leads.lastname AS
It's now running as expected, I made a few other tweaks to get it to an
operational state again. So just for closure on this dark period below some
notes.
There was two triggers that caused the almost instant backlog of locks. As
suspected the one was scheduler that caused endless problems wheneve
Igor Neyman writes:
> The output of explain analyze (Postgres 9.2.3):
> Hash Left Join (cost=111357.64..126222.29 rows=41396 width=42) (actual
> time=1982.543..2737.331 rows=41333 loops=1)
> Hash Cond: ((uc.user_id)::text = (u.id)::text)
> -> Seq Scan on user_2_competition uc (cost=0.00..
From: Dieter Rehbein [mailto:dieter.rehb...@skiline.cc]
Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2013 4:52 AM
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Join between 2 tables always executes a sequential scan on the larger
table
Hi everybody,
in a project I have a performance problem, which I (and my collea
Jumped the gun a bit. the problem still exists like before. But it's
definitely on the right track, below is the output from top in the seconds
before the cluster locks up. For some reason still insisting on moving
tasks around despite bumping the sched_migration_cost cost up to 100ms.
77 root
Hi everybody,
in a project I have a performance problem, which I (and my colleagues) don't
understand. It's a simple join between 2 of 3 tables:
table-1: user (id, user_name, ...). This table has about 1 million rows
(999673 rows)
table-2: competition (57 rows)
table-3: user_2_competi
On 02/04/13 21:34, Dave Page wrote:
On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 11:43 PM, Mark Kirkwood
wrote:
On 02/04/13 13:55, Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 09:40:07AM +0900, Ian Lawrence Barwick wrote:
Due to the security nature of the release, the source and binaries will
only be publicly av
On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 11:43 PM, Mark Kirkwood
wrote:
> On 02/04/13 13:55, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 09:40:07AM +0900, Ian Lawrence Barwick wrote:
Due to the security nature of the release, the source and binaries will
only be publicly available on April 4 -
Touch wood but I think I found the problem thanks to these pointers. I
checked the vm.zone_reclaim_mode and mine was set to 0. However just before
the locking starts I can see many of my CPUs flashing red and jump to high
percentage sys usage. When I look at top it's the migration kernel tasks
that
