On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 08:11:42PM -0800, Lars Bergeson wrote:
> ok, here are results after I did:
> set max_parallel_workers_per_gather = 0;
>
> HashAggregate (cost=1676432.13..1676432.16 rows=3 width=15) (actual time=19908.343..19908.345 rows=5 loops=1)
> I/O Timings: read=532369.898
> Execution Time: 19908.383 ms
> HashAggregate (cost=1390580.70..1390580.72 rows=2 width=15) (actual time=30369.758..30369.761 rows=5 loops=1)
> I/O Timings: read=6440851.540
> Execution Time: 30369.796 ms
> Still taking 10X more I/O to read the smaller table. Very odd.
If I'm not wrong, it's even worse than that ?
It takes 20 or 30sec to run the query - but it says the associated I/O times
are ~500sec or ~6000sec ?
What architecture and OS/version are you running ?
How did you install postgres? From a package or compiled from source ?
The docs indicate you’ll only see I/O Timing information if using EXPLAIN BUFFERS but I’m not seeing any of the other buffer-related information in these plans. Thoughts?
David J.
