From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
---|---|
To: | nick-brennan(at)hotmail(dot)co(dot)uk, nbrennan02(at)gmail(dot)com |
Cc: | "Psql_General (E-mail)" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Indexes being ignored after upgrade to 9.5 |
Date: | 2017-07-26 21:05:50 |
Message-ID: | CAH2-WzmywKH9rxUBgX_uJuEM97F=zdbYQoNDaa6G9J7wLWqq8Q@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 10:34 PM, Nick Brennan <nbrennan02(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> We've added duplicate indexes and analyzing, however the new indexes are
> still ignored unless we force using enable_seqscan=no or reduce
> random_page_cost to 2. The query response times using the new indexes are
> still as slow when we do this. Checking pg_stat_user_indexes the number of
> tuples returned per idx_scan is far greater after the upgrade than before.
> All indexes show valid in pg_indexes.
>
>
> We have tried increasing effective_cache_size but no effect (the queries
> appear to go slower). The DB is 24x7 so we cannot reindex the tables/
> partitions.
>
>
> Can anyone suggest why this would be happening?
Are the indexes bloated? Are they larger than before, as indicated by
psql's \di+ or similar? Did you notice that this happened immediately,
or did it take a while? Are these unique indexes or not? Do you have a
workload with many UPDATEs?
I ask all these questions because I think it's possible that this is
explained by a regression in 9.5's handling of index bloat, described
here:
http://postgr.es/m/CAH2-Wz=SfAKVMv1x9Jh19EJ8am8TZn9f-yECipS9HrrRqSswnA@mail.gmail.com
--
Peter Geoghegan
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tiffany Thang | 2017-07-26 22:41:07 | Developer GUI tools for PostgreSQL |
Previous Message | George Neuner | 2017-07-26 20:22:03 | Re: Partitioning |