On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 8:56 AM, Linos <info@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hello, > > Some days ago I upgraded from 8.4 to 9.3, after the upgrade some queries started performing a lot slower, the query I am using in this example is pasted here: > > http://pastebin.com/71DjEC21 > > > Considering it is a production database users are complaining because queries are much slower than before, so I tried to downgrade to 9.2 with the same result as 9.3, I finally restored the database on 8.4 and the query is as fast as before. > > All this tests are done on Debian Squeeze with 2.6.32-5-amd64 kernel version, the hardware is Intel Xeon E5520, 32Gb ECC RAM, the storage is software RAID 10 with 4 SEAGATE ST3146356SS SAS drives. > > postgresql.conf: > max_connections = 250 > shared_buffers = 6144MB > temp_buffers = 8MB > max_prepared_transactions = 0 > work_mem = 24MB > maintenance_work_mem = 384MB > max_stack_depth = 7MB > default_statistics_target = 150 > effective_cache_size = 24576MB > > > 9.3 explain: > http://explain.depesz.com/s/jP7o > > 9.3 explain analyze: > http://explain.depesz.com/s/6UQT > > 9.2 explain: > http://explain.depesz.com/s/EW1g > > 8.4 explain: > http://explain.depesz.com/s/iAba > > 8.4 explain analyze: > http://explain.depesz.com/s/MPt > > It seems to me that the total estimated cost went too high in 9.2 and 9.3 but I am not sure why, I tried commenting out part of the query and disabling indexonlyscan but still I have very bad timings and estimates. > > The dump file is the same for all versions and after the restore process ended I did vacuum analyze on the restored database in all versions. > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance The rowcount estimates are garbage on all versions so a good execution plan can be chalked up to chance. That being said, it seems like we're getting an awful lot of regressions of this type with recent versions. Can you try re-running this query with enable_nestloop and/or enable_material disabled? (you can disable them for a particular session via: set enable_material = false;) . This is a "ghetto fix" but worth trying. If it was me, I'd be simplifying and optimizing the query. merlin
