From: | "Alex Deucher" <alexdeucher(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "Merlin Moncure" <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, "PostgreSQL Performance" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: postgres 7.4 vs 8.x redux: query plans |
Date: | 2007-04-05 15:34:57 |
Message-ID: | a728f9f90704050834x6b5128acu5355694df0a18cb2@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Ok, well, I dropped the DB and reloaded it and now all seems to be
fine and performing well. I'm not sure what was going on before.
Thanks for everyone's help!
Alex
On 4/3/07, Alex Deucher <alexdeucher(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On 4/3/07, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> > "Alex Deucher" <alexdeucher(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > > Turning off bitmapscan ends up doing a sequential scan. Turning off
> > > both bitmapscan and seqscan results in a bitmap heap scan. It doesn't
> > > seem to want to use the index at all. Any ideas?
> >
> > The "ORed indexscans" plan style that was in 7.4 isn't there anymore;
> > we use bitmap OR'ing instead. There actually are repeated indexscans
> > hidden under the "= ANY" indexscan condition in 8.2, it's just that
> > the mechanism for detecting duplicate matches is different. AFAIK the
> > index access costs ought to be about the same either way, and the other
> > costs the same or better as what we did in 7.4. It's clear though that
> > 8.2 is taking some kind of big hit in the index access in your case.
> > There's something very strange going on here.
> >
> > You do have both lc_collate and lc_ctype set to C, right? What about
> > database encoding?
> >
>
> hmmm... ok, this is weird. performance seems to have improved
> significantly after I reloaded postgres after adding some hew hosts to
> the pg_hba.conf. I'll run some more tests and let you know what
> happens.
>
> Alex
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | jason@ohloh.net | 2007-04-05 15:38:58 | Re: SCSI vs SATA |
Previous Message | Jeff Frost | 2007-04-05 15:21:56 | Re: SCSI vs SATA |