And by the way, I have also tried to upgrade to Postgresql 9.4.8 (the latest
version in postgresl.org's own repository) without improvment.
/ Eskil
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.o
I can add that setting enable_nestloop = 0 cuts the runtime for this query down
to about 4 seconds.
Disabling nested loops globaly does however impacts performance of a lot of
other queries.
/ Eskil
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make
On 7/19/16 9:56 AM, trafdev wrote:
Will extending page to say 128K improve performance?
Well, you can't go to more than 32K, but yes, it might.
Even then, I think your biggest problem is that the data locality is too
low. You're only grabbing ~3 rows every time you read a buffer that
probabl
On 7/21/16 4:59 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> As for function plans, ISTM that could be added to the PL handlers if we
> wanted to (allow a function invocation to return an array of explain
> outputs).
Where would you put those, particularly for functions executed many
times in the query? Would it incl
Jim Nasby writes:
> On 7/19/16 3:10 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> It's not so much that people don't care, as that it's not apparent how to
>> improve this without breaking desirable system properties --- in this
>> case, that functions are black boxes so far as callers are concerned.
> I thought we alr
On 7/19/16 3:10 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Jim Nasby writes:
On 7/5/16 7:14 AM, Robert Klemme wrote:
I was wondering whether there are any plans to include the plan of the
FK check in EXPLAIN output. Or is there a different way to get to see
all the plans of triggers as well as of the main SQL?
Un
On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 3:29 PM, David G. Johnston
wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 2:24 PM, Claudio Freire
> wrote:
>>
>> That cross join doesn't look right. It has no join condition.
>
>
> That is that the definition of a "CROSS JOIN"...
>
> David J.
Well, maybe it shouldn't be.
A cross join
On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 2:24 PM, Claudio Freire
wrote:
> That cross join doesn't look right. It has no join condition.
That is that the definition of a "CROSS JOIN"...
David J.
On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 11:48 AM, Johan Fredriksson wrote:
> EXPLAIN ANALYZE VERBOSE SELECT DISTINCT main.* FROM Users main CROSS
> JOIN ACL ACL_3 JOIN Principals Principals_1 ON ( Principals_1.id =
> main.id ) JOIN CachedGroupMembers CachedGroupMembers_2 ON
> ( CachedGroupMembers_2.MemberId = P
> > > The rowcount estimates from 9.2 seem greatly different from the 8.4 plan.
> > > Did you remember to ANALYZE all the tables after migrating? Maybe there
> > > were some table-specific statistics targets that you forgot to transfer
> > > over? In any case, the 9.2 plan looks like garbage-in-g
10 matches
Mail list logo
