On 12/06/2011 09:00 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Mario Splivalo mario.spliv...@megafon.hr writes:
I have 8.4.8 on producion and 8.4.9 on test, could that explain the
difference in plans chosen?
I'd wonder first if you have the same statistics settings on both.
The big problem here is that the
Mario Splivalo mario.spliv...@megafon.hr writes:
I have 8.4.8 on producion and 8.4.9 on test, could that explain the
difference in plans chosen?
I'd wonder first if you have the same statistics settings on both.
The big problem here is that the estimation of the join size is bad
(8588 versus
Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
I'd wonder first if you have the same statistics settings on both.
The big problem here is that the estimation of the join size is
bad (8588 versus 0).
But both servers develop that estimate for the join size. I was
wondering more about whether the
Kevin Grittner kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov wrote:
But both servers develop that estimate for the join size.
[sigh] Those *were* both from the production server. Please show
us the EXPLAIN ANALYZE from the other server.
-Kevin
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list
On 12/06/2011 09:00 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Mario Splivalo mario.spliv...@megafon.hr writes:
I have 8.4.8 on producion and 8.4.9 on test, could that explain the
difference in plans chosen?
I'd wonder first if you have the same statistics settings on both.
The big problem here is that the
On 12/06/2011 09:17 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
The hash join path must look more expensive on the first machine,
for some reason.
Mario, could you post the result of running this query from both
servers?:
http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Server_Configuration
Sure. Here is from the
On 12/06/2011 09:29 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
Kevin Grittner kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov wrote:
But both servers develop that estimate for the join size.
[sigh] Those *were* both from the production server. Please show
us the EXPLAIN ANALYZE from the other server.
Huh, right... missed
