[PERFORM] Questionaire: Common WAL write rates on busy servers.

Hi, I've lately seen more and more installations where the generation of write-ahead-log (WAL) is one of the primary bottlenecks. I'm curious whether that's primarily a "sampling error" of mine, or whether that's indeed more common. The primary reason I'm curious is that I'm pondering a few

Re: [PERFORM] Delete, foreign key, index usage

On 04/24/2017 08:48 AM, Johann Spies wrote: Why would the planner prefer the use the gin index and not the btree index in this case? You'll need to show what queries are you running - that's a quite important piece of information, and I don't see it anywhere in this thread. Seeing explain

Re: [PERFORM] Delete, foreign key, index usage

> On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 6:40 AM, Johann Spies wrote: >> >> On 4 April 2017 at 14:07, Johann Spies wrote: >> >> > Why would that be? >> >> To answer my own question. After experimenting a lot we found that >> 9.6 uses a parallel seqscan that is