| From: | Filip Rembiałkowski <filip(dot)rembialkowski(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andreas Kretschmer <akretschmer(at)spamfence(dot)net> |
| Cc: | postgres performance list <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: query slowdown after 9.0 -> 9.4 migration |
| Date: | 2016-10-28 01:37:19 |
| Message-ID: | CAP_rwwmXxqASHJApuKQkfzEMfMv7xWDsBnOY5Ybe1i6J9qreRg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 7:38 AM, Andreas Kretschmer <
akretschmer(at)spamfence(dot)net> wrote:
> Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>
> >
> > Perhaps the table is organized / sorted differently, or something like
> > that. How did you do the upgrade?
>
>
Nothing special, dump + reload. The table in question is tiny - 280 kB, 859
rows.
> Maybe table-bloat? Filip, check if autovacuum runs properly.
>
>
Yes, it does. Just to be sure I ran VACUUM FULL, ANALZYE and REINDEX on all
tables and indexes - no change :-(
Any other ideas (before drawing on heavy tools like strace)?
Does it make sense to ask on postgis-users list?
Thanks,
Filip
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Warner, Gary, Jr | 2016-10-28 15:44:13 | Big Memory Boxes and pgtune |
| Previous Message | Craig James | 2016-10-27 20:46:05 | limit 1 on view never finishes |