Re: Bad Query Plans on 10.3 vs 9.6

From: Cory Tucker <cory(dot)tucker(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Bad Query Plans on 10.3 vs 9.6
Date: 2018-03-29 14:21:06
Message-ID: CAG_=8kAky_Fh3zsBuVHeaS-21QtCqdN8PKBVMrNcO2znjgq50g@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

>
> Another possibility is that 10.3 sees the index-only scan as too expensive
> because it thinks most of the table isn't all-visible. Comparing
> pg_class.relallvisible values might be informative.
>
> regards, tom lane
>

I'm happy to try to dig into this one more, however, I'm not familiar with
this value. What should I be looking for here?

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David Rowley 2018-03-29 14:26:38 Re: Bad Query Plans on 10.3 vs 9.6
Previous Message Tom Lane 2018-03-29 13:47:01 Re: Bad Query Plans on 10.3 vs 9.6