| From: | Alban Hertroys <haramrae(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Nicola Contu <nicola(dot)contu(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Centos 6.9 and centos 7 |
| Date: | 2017-12-04 21:02:25 |
| Message-ID: | CE3C09E1-A7ED-44CE-B88A-57E0401A4424@gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
> On 4 Dec 2017, at 16:57, Nicola Contu <nicola(dot)contu(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> No I did not run a vacuum analyze. Do you want me to try with that first?
That means your statistics may not be up to date, although by now autovacuum should have done the job (you didn't turn that off or anything, did you?). Bad statistics result in non-optimal query plans and therefore could very well cause your timing differences.
An easy way to verify, since you still have access to both versions of the database, is to compare the statistics of the relevant tables between the two. They should be similar.
Alban Hertroys
--
If you can't see the forest for the trees,
cut the trees and you'll find there is no forest.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | sql2pg | 2017-12-04 21:05:34 | Re: WAL reducing size |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2017-12-04 20:23:20 | Re: [GENERAL] postmaster deadlock while logging after syslogger exited |