Re: Performance Issue after upgrade from 9 to 11

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
>

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  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