| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Israel Brewster <israel(at)ravnalaska(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, pgsql-general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Weird performance difference |
| Date: | 2017-10-21 00:38:33 |
| Message-ID: | 13423.1508546313@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Israel Brewster <israel(at)ravnalaska(dot)net> writes:
>> Can you send "explain" (not explain analyze) for the production server?
> Not for the full query - it only just completed, after 70 minutes or so, and I wasn't running under EXPLAIN ANALYZE. Running with a shorter date range of only 7 days, as you suggest below: https://explain.depesz.com/s/r80j <https://explain.depesz.com/s/r80j>
First thing that jumps out from that is
> Foreign Scan on oag_schedules (cost=100.00..128.60 rows=620 width=108) (actual time=3.576..477.524 rows=79,853 loops=1)
Being off by a factor of 100 at the scan level is never a good start for a
join plan. Turn on use_remote_estimate (assuming these are postgres_fdw
tables). Also try explicitly ANALYZE'ing the foreign tables. I do not
believe auto-analyze will touch foreign tables ...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | doganmeh | 2017-10-21 03:15:27 | Restoring tables with circular references dumped to separate files |
| Previous Message | Israel Brewster | 2017-10-20 23:52:44 | Re: Weird performance difference |