From: | Perumal Raj <perucinci(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Adrian Klaver <adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com> |
Cc: | "pgsql-generallists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Performance Issue after upgrade from 9 to 11 |
Date: | 2020-01-29 21:58:47 |
Message-ID: | CALvqh4o-eyy4tO-Ed=qaxw_Vo6o6xESNRt-dEKW57JMdUMnpMw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Hi Tom /Adrian,
Issue is not specific to a table or particular Query. Also there is no
change in DB parameter after upgrade.
That the only way i can make it most of the the query to run as like before
upgrade.
Note:
Some web reference says , Engine will take some time to adjust until it
runs autovacuum .
On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 10:22 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Perumal Raj <perucinci(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > We have recently upgraded postgres from 9.2 to 11.6 and started seeing
> > performance issue immediately and able to fix the performance issue
> after
> > disabling parameter: enable_seqscan.
> > Question :
> > Should i keep the above parameter always disabled ? If not why the
> behavior
> > changed in Higher version ?
>
> This is unanswerable with the amount of information you've given.
> Yes, turning off enable_seqscan is a bad idea in general, but why
> you got a worse plan without that requires details.
>
> https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Slow_Query_Questions
>
> regards, tom lane
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter J. Holzer | 2020-01-29 22:33:38 | Re: Performance Issue after upgrade from 9 to 11 |
Previous Message | Michael Lewis | 2020-01-29 18:43:29 | Re: Exclude constraint on ranges : commutative containment : allow only complete containment |