Re: Substantial different index use between 9.5 and 9.6

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bill Measday <bill(at)measday(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Substantial different index use between 9.5 and 9.6
Date: 2016-12-01 23:48:12
Message-ID: 21406.1480636092@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

Bill Measday <bill(at)measday(dot)com> writes:
> Substantial different index use between 9.5 and 9.6

Maybe you missed an ANALYZE after migrating? The plan difference
seems to be due to a vast difference in rowcount estimate for the
m_elevations condition:

> -> Bitmap Heap Scan on m_elevations e
> (cost=282802.21..37401439.43 rows=3512160 width=8)

> -> Seq Scan on m_elevations e
> (cost=10000000000.00..13296950520.12 rows=3512159563 width=8)

If you don't know where that factor-of-1000 came from, maybe take
it up with the postgis folk. It'd mostly be coming out of their
selectivity estimation routines.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bill Measday 2016-12-02 00:26:09 Re: Substantial different index use between 9.5 and 9.6
Previous Message Bill Measday 2016-12-01 23:38:50 Substantial different index use between 9.5 and 9.6