| From: | Guillaume Smet <guillaume(dot)smet(at)gmail(dot)com> | 
|---|---|
| To: | Gaël Le Mignot <gael(at)pilotsystems(dot)net> | 
| Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org | 
| Subject: | Re: Performance regression between 8.3 and 8.4 on heavy text indexing | 
| Date: | 2009-08-23 12:49:05 | 
| Message-ID: | 1d4e0c10908230549u79c1fcd4t23b16c29b114992d@mail.gmail.com | 
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email | 
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance | 
Hi Gaël,
On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 3:37 PM, Gaël Le Mignot<gael(at)pilotsystems(dot)net> wrote:
> With 8.3 ::
>
>  Limit  (cost=752.67..752.67 rows=1 width=24)
>  (11 rows)
>
> With 8.4 ::
>  (8 rows)
Could you provide us the EXPLAIN *ANALYZE* output of both plans?
From what I can see, one of the difference is that the estimates of
the number of rows are / 3 for this part of the query:
8.3 ->  Bitmap Index Scan on keywords_index  (cost=0.00..48.97 rows=574 width=0)
8.4 ->  Bitmap Index Scan on keywords_index  (cost=0.00..14.03 rows=192 width=0)
It might be interesting to see if 8.4 is right or not.
Before 8.4, the selectivity for full text search was a constant (as
you can see it in your 8.3 plan: the number of rows are equal in both
bitmap index scan). 8.4 is smarter which might lead to other plans.
-- 
Guillaume
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jaime Casanova | 2009-08-23 20:25:59 | Re: [PERFORMANCE] how to set wal_buffers | 
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2009-08-23 00:40:32 | Re: Number of tables |