Thanks guys!! That definitely solved the issue!
On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 9:16 AM, Scott Ribe <scott_ribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Aug 5, 2015, at 7:56 AM, John Scalia <jayknowsunix@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> SELECT
> c.relname,
> pg_size_pretty(count(*) * 8192) as buffered,
> round(100.0 * count(*) /
> (SELECT setting FROM pg_settings
> WHERE name='shared_buffers')::integer,1)
> AS buffers_percent,
> round(100.0 * count(*) * 8192 /
> pg_relation_size(c.oid),1)
> AS percent_of_relation
> FROM pg_class c
> INNER JOIN pg_buffercache b
> ON b.relfilenode = c.relfilenode
> INNER JOIN pg_database d
> ON (b.reldatabase = d.oid AND d.datname = current_database())
> GROUP BY c.oid,c.relname
> ORDER BY 3 DESC
> LIMIT 25;
So, the first thing I would do is change:
> round(100.0 * count(*) /
> (SELECT setting FROM pg_settings
> WHERE name='shared_buffers')::integer,1)
to:
> (SELECT setting FROM pg_settings
> WHERE name='shared_buffers')::integer,1)
and change:
> round(100.0 * count(*) * 8192 /
> pg_relation_size(c.oid),1)
to:
> pg_relation_size(c.oid),1)
Then look for 0s in those output columns. I'll bet that the 9.4 vs 9.2 difference is simply a value of 0 for one of those, not some exotic thing about the query plan. If I'm right about that, then you can start hunting down a specific explanation.
--
Scott Ribe
scott_ribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.elevated-dev.com/
https://www.linkedin.com/in/scottribe/
(303) 722-0567 voice
