| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Michael P(dot) McDonnell" <bzaks1424(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Hung Query with No Locking Issues |
| Date: | 2023-05-08 01:00:17 |
| Message-ID: | 209710.1683507617@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
"Michael P. McDonnell" <bzaks1424(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Sun, May 7, 2023 at 4:25 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Perhaps an "ANALYZE table_b" in between would help.
> Okay - that worked.
> How did you know that would work? That's incredible.
Well, I guessed ;-) ... but it was a well-educated guess.
The symptoms sounded like you were getting a bad plan choice for
the second query, which is unsurprising if you populate a table
from empty and don't give auto-analyze enough time to collect
some statistics behind your back.
As a solution going forward, I'd recommend adding the ANALYZE
as the last step in the table-populating procedure.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas Munro | 2023-05-08 02:17:16 | Re: "PANIC: could not open critical system index 2662" - twice |
| Previous Message | Michael P. McDonnell | 2023-05-07 23:42:21 | Re: Hung Query with No Locking Issues |