From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Rhhh Lin <ruanlinehan(at)hotmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: EXPLAIN <query> command just hangs... |
Date: | 2017-11-02 21:40:16 |
Message-ID: | 14805.1509658816@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Rhhh Lin <ruanlinehan(at)hotmail(dot)com> writes:
> The EXPLAIN <query> statement is currently 'f' for waiting and 'active' via pg_stat_activity, so it is doing something. The ps command does not show me anything more verbose.
ps would confirm for sure whether it was eating CPU time, whereas I do not
particularly trust pg_stat_activity to tell you that.
> The reason I am very suspect of the timestamp column makeup is that if I
> remove that predicate from the EXPLAIN command and the actual query,
> both complete within seconds without issue.
We've seen issues with the planner having trouble trying to determine the
extreme values of an indexed column, in cases where there are a lot of
uncommitted or recently-dead entries at the end of the index --- it does
a lot of work trying to verify the commit status of each entry in turn.
So I wonder if that might apply.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Justin Pryzby | 2017-11-02 21:49:41 | Re: EXPLAIN <query> command just hangs... |
Previous Message | Rhhh Lin | 2017-11-02 21:13:05 | Re: EXPLAIN <query> command just hangs... |