From: | Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Sanyo Moura <sanyo(dot)moura(at)tatic(dot)net> |
Cc: | jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-performance(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Query with high planning time at version 11.1 compared versions 10.5 and 11.0 |
Date: | 2018-11-27 21:10:22 |
Message-ID: | 20181127211022.GA30707@telsasoft.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance |
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 06:30:04PM -0200, Sanyo Moura wrote:
>>> I'm running performance tests for my application at version 11.1 and
>>> encountered
>>> queries with high planning time compared to the same planning, running at
>>> versions 10.5 and 11.0.
>
> Below is the script that creates one partition table:
Would you send the CREATE TABLE or \d for precio, produto, and almacen ?
Are the 2 referenced tables also empty or can you reproduce the problem if they
are (like in a separate database) ?
Do you still have an instance running 10.5 ? Or did you find the planning time
in logs (like autoexplain) ?
Are any of your catalog tables bloated or indexes fragmented ?
I assume catalog tables and their indices should all be much smaller than
shared_buffers.
SELECT relpages, relname FROM pg_class WHERE relnamespace='pg_catalog'::regnamespace ORDER BY 1 DESC LIMIT 9;
Can you compare pg_settings between the servers ? Either from a live server or
historic postgresql.conf or from memory if need be.
https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Server_Configuration
Justin
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2018-11-27 21:10:49 | Re: Handling of REGRESS_OPTS in MSVC for regression tests |
Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2018-11-27 21:05:39 | Re: SSL tests failing with "ee key too small" error on Debian SID |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Justin Pryzby | 2018-11-28 00:44:02 | Re: Query with high planning time at version 11.1 compared versions 10.5 and 11.0 |
Previous Message | Sanyo Moura | 2018-11-27 20:30:04 | Re: Query with high planning time at version 11.1 compared versions 10.5 and 11.0 |