Search Postgresql Archives

Re: PG9.0 planner difference to 8.3 -> majorly bad performance

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

To: Uwe Schroeder <uwe@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: PG9.0 planner difference to 8.3 -> majorly bad performance
From: Stephen Frost <sfrost@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2011 14:05:23 -0500
Cc: pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Thom Brown <thom@xxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <201101291013.15128.uwe@xxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)

* Uwe Schroeder (uwe@xxxxxxxxx) wrote:
> Yes, the database is vacuumed and analyzed. The bad plan from 9.0 improves by 
> 2 seconds when I go for a really high statistics target of 5000.

What if you go back to 10..?

	Stephen

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

References:
- PG9.0 planner difference to 8.3 -> majorly bad performance
  - From: Uwe Schroeder
- Re: PG9.0 planner difference to 8.3 -> majorly bad performance
  - From: Thom Brown
- Re: PG9.0 planner difference to 8.3 -> majorly bad performance
  - From: Uwe Schroeder

Prev by Date: Re: PG9.0 planner difference to 8.3 -> majorly bad performance
Next by Date: Re: Full Text Index Scanning
Previous by thread: Re: PG9.0 planner difference to 8.3 -> majorly bad performance
Next by thread: Re: PG9.0 planner difference to 8.3 -> majorly bad performance
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

[Index of Archives] [Postgresql Jobs] [Postgresql Admin] [Postgresql Performance] [Linux Clusters] [PHP Home] [PHP on Windows] [Kernel Newbies] [PHP Classes] [PHP Books] [PHP Databases] [Postgresql & PHP] [Yosemite]

Powered by Linux