From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Kenny Bachman <kenny(dot)bachman17(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Pgsql-admin <pgsql-admin(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: too high planning time |
Date: | 2023-02-02 15:24:25 |
Message-ID: | 1536295.1675351465@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-admin |
Kenny Bachman <kenny(dot)bachman17(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> EXPLAIN ANALYZE select
> i."DefinitionId",
> from
> "T_WF_INSTANCE" i
> where
> i."InstanceId" = 10045683193;
> QUERY PLAN
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Index Scan using
> "T_WF_INSTANCE_InstanceId_ApplicationCd_EntityStatusCd_idx" on
> "T_WF_INSTANCE" i (cost=0.57..2.79 rows=1 width=34) (actual
> time=2.522..2.522 rows=1 loops=1)
> Index Cond: ("InstanceId" = '10045683193'::bigint)
> * Planning Time: 8460.446 ms Execution Time: 2.616 ms*
> (4 rows)
It's hard to believe that such a simple query could take that
long to plan. What I'm wondering is if the planner got blocked
on some other session's exclusive lock. Not a lock on
"T_WF_INSTANCE" itself, because we'd have got that lock during
parsing before the "Planning Time" measurement starts. But
there's going to be a physical access to the table's index
to determine its tree height, so an ex-lock on the index could
explain this. Or an ex-lock on catalogs, particularly pg_statistic.
What else is going on in your database when this happens?
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | jagjit singh | 2023-02-02 15:37:14 | Re: Postgres Monitoring |
Previous Message | Kenny Bachman | 2023-02-02 09:54:34 | too high planning time |