Re: query reboot pgsql 9.5.1

the result was the same:

*pba=# ANALYZE VERBOSE public._gc_cat;INFO: analizando
«public._gc_cat»INFO: «_gc_cat»: se procesaron 1999 de 1999 páginas, que
contenían 91932 filas vigentes y 0 filas no vigentes; 30000 filas en la
muestra, 91932 total de filas estimadasANALYZEpba=# ANALYZE VERBOSE
public._gc_;public._gc_cat public._gc_tb pba=# ANALYZE VERBOSE
public._gc_tb;INFO: analizando «public._gc_tb»INFO: «_gc_tb»: se
procesaron 2120 de 2120 páginas, que contenían 120130 filas vigentes y 0
filas no vigentes; 30000 filas en la muestra, 120130 total de filas
estimadasANALYZEpba=# SELECT idprodxintegrar FROM _gc_tb a LEFT join
_gc_cat b on ( b.arama <@ a.arama and a.arama <@ b.arama );Terminado
(killed)*

2016-03-04 15:00 GMT-06:00 Melvin Davidson <melvin6925(at)gmail(dot)com>:

>
>
> On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 3:52 PM, Felipe de Jesús Molina Bravo <
> fjmolinabravo(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>>> Now i execute the same in pgsql 9.4.5 and all is fine!!!
>>>>
>>>> The EXPLAINs are:
>>>>
>>>> - pgsql 9.5.1:
>>>>
>>>> Nested Loop Left Join (cost=0.03..492944.81 rows=276095 width=4)
>>>> -> Seq Scan on _gc_tb a (cost=0.00..3321.30 rows=120130 width=66)
>>>> -> Bitmap Heap Scan on _gc_cat b (cost=0.03..4.06 rows=2
>>>> width=70)
>>>> Recheck Cond: ((arama <@ a.arama) AND (a.arama <@ arama))
>>>> -> Bitmap Index Scan on _gc_cat_arama_gin
>>>> (cost=0.00..0.03 rows=2 width=0)
>>>> Index Cond: ((arama <@ a.arama) AND
>>>> (a.arama <@ arama))
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> - pgsql 9.4.5:
>>>> Nested Loop Left Join (cost=0.03..492944.81 rows=276095 width=4)
>>>> -> Seq Scan on _gc_tb a (cost=0.00..3321.30 rows=120130 width=66)
>>>> -> Bitmap Heap Scan on _gc_cat b (cost=0.03..4.06 rows=2
>>>> width=70)
>>>> Recheck Cond: ((arama <@ a.arama) AND (a.arama <@ arama))
>>>> -> Bitmap Index Scan on _gc_cat_arama_gin
>>>> (cost=0.00..0.03 rows=2 width=0)
>>>> Index Cond: ((arama <@ a.arama)
>>>> AND
>>>> (a.arama <@ arama))
>>>>
>>>
>>> The above are exactly the same, so if they are indeed from the different
>>> versions I do not see an issue. The question to ask here is whether the
>>> above are actually from the different Postgres instances?
>>>
>>>
>> yes these are differents
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>> So is each Postgres instance running in a separate container and if so
>>> are they set up the same?
>>>
>>>
>> Yes, is the same configuration!!
>>
>>>
>>>
>>
> I suspect your 9.5.1 database has not been analyzed yet and therefore the
> statistics are off.
>
> Do the following in the 9.5.1 database and then retry your query.
>
> ANALYZE VERBOSE public._gc_cat;
> ANALYZE VERBOSE public._gc_tb;
>
> --
> *Melvin Davidson*
> I reserve the right to fantasize. Whether or not you
> wish to share my fantasy is entirely up to you.
>