Re: Bad choice of query plan from PG 7.3.6 to PG 7.3.9

Now with analyze

Test Server:
comm=# VACUUM ANALYZE VERBOSE StatCon_Tbl;
INFO: --Relation public.statcon_tbl--
INFO: Pages 338: Changed 0, Empty 0; Tup 11494: Vac 0, Keep 0, UnUsed 0.
Total CPU 0.02s/0.00u sec elapsed 1.98 sec.
INFO: --Relation pg_toast.pg_toast_179851--
INFO: Pages 85680: Changed 0, Empty 0; Tup 343321: Vac 0, Keep 0, UnUsed 0.
Total CPU 1.75s/0.23u sec elapsed 30.36 sec.
INFO: Analyzing public.statcon_tbl
VACUUM

Live Server:
comm=# VACUUM ANALYZE VERBOSE StatCon_Tbl;
INFO: --Relation public.statcon_tbl--
INFO: Pages 424: Changed 0, Empty 0; Tup 12291: Vac 0, Keep 0, UnUsed 6101.
Total CPU 0.00s/0.01u sec elapsed 0.01 sec.
INFO: --Relation pg_toast.pg_toast_891830--
INFO: Pages 89234: Changed 0, Empty 0; Tup 352823: Vac 0, Keep 0,
UnUsed 5487.
Total CPU 3.21s/0.47u sec elapsed 18.03 sec.
INFO: Analyzing public.statcon_tbl
VACUUM

Have done some sampling running the same query a few times through the
past few hours and it appears that the VACUUM has helped.
The following are the results after the Vacuum:

After VACUUM VERBOSE:
Index Scan using ctp_statcon on statcon_tbl (cost=0.00..21.29 rows=5
width=4) (actual time=0.07..0.37 rows=39 loops=4)
Index Cond: ((statcon_tbl.sctid = "outer".sctid) AND (statcon_tbl.ctpid
= 1))

After VACUUM ANALYZE VERBOSE:
Index Scan using ctp_statcon on statcon_tbl (cost=0.00..20.03 rows=5
width=4) (actual time=0.09..0.37 rows=39 loops=4)
Index Cond: ((statcon_tbl.sctid = "outer".sctid) AND (statcon_tbl.ctpid
= 1))

Only question remains why one server uses its indexes and the other
don't eventhough VACUUM ANALYZE has now been run on both servers?
And even more interesting, before the VACUUM ANALYZEit was the server
where no vacuum had taken place that used its index.

Cheers
Jona

Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:

> You didn't do analyze.
>
> Chris
>
> Jona wrote:
>
>> Results of VACUUM VERBOSE from both servers
>>
>> Test server:
>> comm=# VACUUM VERBOSE StatCon_Tbl;
>> INFO: --Relation public.statcon_tbl--
>> INFO: Pages 338: Changed 338, Empty 0; Tup 11494: Vac 0, Keep 0,
>> UnUsed 0.
>> Total CPU 0.02s/0.00u sec elapsed 0.04 sec.
>> INFO: --Relation pg_toast.pg_toast_179851--
>> INFO: Pages 85680: Changed 85680, Empty 0; Tup 343321: Vac 0, Keep
>> 0, UnUsed 0.
>> Total CPU 4.03s/0.40u sec elapsed 70.99 sec.
>> VACUUM
>>
>> Live Server:
>> comm=# VACUUM VERBOSE StatCon_Tbl;
>> INFO: --Relation public.statcon_tbl--
>> INFO: Pages 424: Changed 0, Empty 0; Tup 12291: Vac 0, Keep 0,
>> UnUsed 6101.
>> Total CPU 0.01s/0.00u sec elapsed 0.60 sec.
>> INFO: --Relation pg_toast.pg_toast_891830--
>> INFO: Pages 89234: Changed 0, Empty 0; Tup 352823: Vac 0, Keep 0,
>> UnUsed 5487.
>> Total CPU 4.44s/0.34u sec elapsed 35.48 sec.
>> VACUUM
>>
>> Cheers
>> Jona
>>
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>
>>> Jona <jonanews(at)oismail(dot)com> <mailto:jonanews(at)oismail(dot)com> writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>> I'm currently experiencing problems with long query execution times.
>>>> What I believe makes these problems particularly interesting is the
>>>> difference in execution plans between our test server running
>>>> PostGreSQL 7.3.6 and our production server running PostGreSQL 7.3.9.
>>>> The test server is an upgraded "home machine", a Pentium 4 with 1GB
>>>> of memory and IDE disk.
>>>> The production server is a dual CPU XEON Pentium 4 with 2GB memory
>>>> and SCSI disks.
>>>> One should expect the production server to be faster, but
>>>> appearently not as the outlined query plans below shows.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I think the plans are fine; it looks to me like the production server
>>> has serious table-bloat or index-bloat problems, probably because of
>>> inadequate vacuuming. For instance compare these entries:
>>>
>>> -> Index Scan using ctp_statcon on statcon_tbl (cost=0.00..6.01
>>> rows=1 width=4) (actual time=0.05..0.31 rows=39 loops=4)
>>> Index Cond: ((statcon_tbl.sctid = "outer".sctid) AND
>>> (statcon_tbl.ctpid = 1))
>>>
>>> -> Index Scan using ctp_statcon on statcon_tbl (cost=0.00..20.40
>>> rows=5 width=4) (actual time=27.97..171.84 rows=39 loops=4)
>>> Index Cond: ((statcon_tbl.sctid = "outer".sctid) AND
>>> (statcon_tbl.ctpid = 1))
>>>
>>> Appears to be exactly the same task ... but the test server spent
>>> 1.24 msec total while the production server spent 687.36 msec total.
>>> That's more than half of your problem right there. Some of the other
>>> scans seem a lot slower on the production machine too.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> 1) How come the query plans between the 2 servers are different?
>>>>
>>>
>>> The production server's rowcount estimates are pretty good, the test
>>> server's are not. How long since you vacuumed/analyzed the test
>>> server?
>>>
>>> It'd be interesting to see the output of "vacuum verbose statcon_tbl"
>>> on both servers ...
>>>
>>> regards, tom lane
>>>
>>> PS: if you post any more query plans, please try to use software that
>>> doesn't mangle the formatting so horribly ...
>>>
>>> ---------------------------(end of
>>> broadcast)---------------------------
>>> TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
>>>
>>>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org