From: | "Arnaud L(dot)" <arnaud(dot)listes(at)codata(dot)eu> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-general <pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Slow statement using parallelism after 9.6>11 upgrade |
Date: | 2019-09-03 14:06:06 |
Message-ID: | 938dfead-0605-8f91-8f21-8871f44bd6ff@codata.eu |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Le 03/09/2019 à 15:43, Tom Lane a écrit :
> "Arnaud L." <arnaud(dot)listes(at)codata(dot)eu> writes:
>> We have upgraded our database from 9.6 to 11 (and updated PostGIS from
>> 2.3 to 2.5 as well).
>> ...
>
> Have you re-ANALYZEd the database? The problem with this query
> seems to be the spectacularly awful rowcount estimate here:
You mean after the upgrade process ? Yes I have.
I've juste re-run "ANALYZE table" to rule this out, estimates are the same.
Maybe some statistic target problem ? Estimated number of rows is
284.196.352
Also, this is a GIN index on a bigint[] column.
I've setup parallel_tuple_cost to 1.0 parallel_setup_cost to 5000.0 for
the time being which solves this specific problem. These value don't
look very sensible though, they are very high compared to the default ones.
Cheers
--
Arnaud
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Paul Ramsey | 2019-09-03 14:39:41 | Re: Slow statement using parallelism after 9.6>11 upgrade |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2019-09-03 13:43:11 | Re: Slow statement using parallelism after 9.6>11 upgrade |