Dne 16.3.2011 21:38, Davenport, Julie napsal(a): > OK, I did the explain analyze on both sides (using a file for output instead) and used the tool you suggested. > > 8.0 - http://explain.depesz.com/s/Wam > 8.4 - http://explain.depesz.com/s/asJ Great, that's exactly what I asked for. I'll repost that to the mailing list so that the others can check it too. > When I run the queries I get 59,881 rows on the 8.0 side and 59,880 on the 8.4 side, which is what I expect because 8.4 side was updated a couple hours later and some minor changes make sense. Hm, obviously both versions got the row estimates wrong, but the 8.4 difference (200x) is much bigger that the 8.0 (10x). This might be one of the reasons why a different plan is chosen. Anyway both versions underestimate the course_control subquery, as they believe there will be 1 row only, but in reality there's 2882 of them :-( > After your first email I did a vacuum full analyze on the 8.4 side on each of the tables in the schema that the views cover, then ran the query again, and it took even longer - up from 397,857 ms to 412,862 ms. Another query that was taking 597248 ms before the vacuum/analyze took 617526 ms after. I don't understand why, but this is generally the experience we've had with vacuum/analyze on these particular tables. We do large numbers of deletes and inserts to them every day, so I would think they would benefit from it. OK, so the tables were in a quite good shape - not bloated etc. The slight increase is negligible I guess, the vacuum probably removed the data from shared buffers or something like that. > I did do a vacuum full analyze on instr_as_stutemp before the explain analyze, as you suggested. OK, now the row estimate is correct Seq Scan on instr_as_stutemp (cost=0.00..1.04 rows=4 width=9) (actual time=0.052..0.098 rows=4 loops=1) > I will consider the indexes and do some benchmark testing (I have considered the 'drop-load-reindex' trick in the past). I'm sure increasing maintenance_work_mem will help. OK. But the question why the plan changed this way still remains unanswered (or maybe it does and I don't see it). One thing I've noticed is this difference in estimates: 8.0: ==================================================================== Subquery Scan course_control (cost=9462700.13..9492043.53 rows=1 width=32) (actual time=43368.204..45795.239 rows=2882 loops=1) * Filter: (((to_char(course_begin_date, 'YYYYMMDD'::text) = '20100412'::text) OR (to_char(course_begin_date, 'YYYYMMDD'::text) = ... '20110307'::text)) AND ((course_delivery)::text ~~ 'O%'::text) AND (course_cross_section IS NULL)) 8.4: ==================================================================== Subquery Scan course_control (cost=18710.12..548966.51 rows=1 width=32) (actual time=1632.403..4438.949 rows=2882 loops=1) * Filter: ((course_control.course_cross_section IS NULL) AND ((course_control.course_delivery)::text ~~ 'O%'::text) AND (to_char(course_control.course_begin_date, 'YYYYMMDD'::text) = ANY ('{20100412,20100510,...,20110110,20110207,20110307}'::text[]))) I.e. both verions use seqscan, both estimate the same number of rows (incorrectly), yet the estimated cost is very different (9492043 vs. 548966). Maybe the cost estimation really changed between 8.0 and 8.4, but just for sure - what are the cost values? I mean what is set for those config values: cpu_index_tuple_cost cpu_operator_cost cpu_tuple_cost random_page_cost seq_page_cost work_mem (use 'show' to see the actual value). regards Tomas -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
