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

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 actually a lot faster than using the index on these large tables. This, to us was a surprise! Regards Johann -- Because e

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 actually a lot faster than using > the index on these large t

[PERFORM] How to send content of log file in official mailid.

Hi, I have to send content of a log file in my mail Id. Could you please assist me to do this? I am using Postgres-9.1 with Linux OS. Regards, Dinesh Chandra |Database administrator (Oracle/PostgreSQL)| Cyient Ltd. Noida. -- Mobile:

[PERFORM] Table not using tsvector gin index and performance much worse than when it uses it.

Hi, I have a table with 22k rows - not large at all. I have a couple of indices on it as well as a gin index on a tsvector column. If I reindex the table and run a query it takes ~20ms to execute using the tsvector-gin index. By the end of the day, the planner decides not to use the gin index and

Re: [PERFORM] Table not using tsvector gin index and performance much worse than when it uses it.

rverghese writes: > I have a table with 22k rows - not large at all. I have a couple of indices > on it as well as a gin index on a tsvector column. If I reindex the table > and run a query it takes ~20ms to execute using the tsvector-gin index. By > the end of the day, the planner decides not to

[PERFORM] Re: Table not using tsvector gin index and performance much worse than when it uses it.

Thanks for the response! * We are on version 9.5.6 * Less than 10% of the table was updated today (between the time of the last reindex to when performance deteriorated) * autovacuum is on. I don't see an autoanalyze property in config but these are the settings for analyze /autovacuum_analyze_

Re: -EXT-[PERFORM] Re: Table not using tsvector gin index and performance much worse than when it uses it.

>From my experience, you want to really tighten the autovacuum_analyze >parameters. I recommend our users to use: autovacuum_analyze_threshold = 1 autovacuum_analyze_scale_factor = 0.0 Analyze is quite cheap, and the speed difference between an optimal and a suboptimal plans are usually p

Re: -EXT-[PERFORM] Re: Table not using tsvector gin index and performance much worse than when it uses it.

Ok, appreciate the feedback. Will play around with those settings as well. Maybe start with default which is 50 I believe. Thanks! RV -- View this message in context: http://www.postgresql-archive.org/Table-not-using-tsvector-gin-index-and-performance-much-worse-than-when-it-uses-it-tp5954485p

Re: -EXT-[PERFORM] Re: Table not using tsvector gin index and performance much worse than when it uses it.

rverghese writes: > Will play around with those settings as well. Maybe start with default which > is 50 I believe. If you're on 9.5, auto-analyze does not result in a pending list flush, so it's irrelevant to fixing your problem. (Assuming I've identified the problem correctly.) But you do hav

Re: -EXT-[PERFORM] Re: Table not using tsvector gin index and performance much worse than when it uses it.

Yup, I just found the per index option. Pretty cool. Will see what value is optimal... Thanks RV -- View this message in context: http://www.postgresql-archive.org/Table-not-using-tsvector-gin-index-and-performance-much-worse-than-when-it-uses-it-tp5954485p5954521.html Sent from the PostgreSQL