I have a fairly simple query:
SELECT some columns
FROM tubesite_image
INNER JOIN tubesite_object
ON (tubesite_image.object_ptr_id = tubesite_object.id)
WHERE
tubesite_object.site_id = 8
ORDER BY
tubesite_object.pub_date ASC LIMIT 21;
That query is having a bad query
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
Hi all,
I am running a load simulation on Debian with PostgreSQL 8.4.9 (standard
Debian package).
Certain number of clients do the following stepsin a transaction (read
commited level) periodically (about 1.1 transaction per second / client)
and concurrently:
-reads a record of table Machine
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
On 12/6/11 4:30 PM, Havasvölgyi Ottó wrote:
Is there so much difference between 8.4 and 9.1, or is this something else?
Please tell me if any other info is needed.
It is fairly likely that the difference you're seeing here is due to
improvements made in checkpointing and other operations made
On 12/5/11 1:36 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
I understand the impulse to run autovacuum less frequently or less
aggressively. When we first started running PostgreSQL the default
configuration was very cautious.
The default settings are deliberately cautious, as default settings
should be.
But
10 matches
Mail list logo
