On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 3:52 PM, Felipe de Jesús Molina Bravo <fjmolinabravo@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The above are exactly the same, so if they are indeed from the different versions I do not see an issue. The question to ask here is whether the above are actually from the different Postgres instances?
Now i execute the same in pgsql 9.4.5 and all is fine!!!
The EXPLAINs are:
- pgsql 9.5.1:
Nested Loop Left Join (cost=0.03..492944.81 rows=276095 width=4)
-> Seq Scan on _gc_tb a (cost=0.00..3321.30 rows=120130 width=66)
-> Bitmap Heap Scan on _gc_cat b (cost=0.03..4.06 rows=2 width=70)
Recheck Cond: ((arama <@ a.arama) AND (a.arama <@ arama))
-> Bitmap Index Scan on _gc_cat_arama_gin
(cost=0.00..0.03 rows=2 width=0)
Index Cond: ((arama <@ a.arama) AND
(a.arama <@ arama))
- pgsql 9.4.5:
Nested Loop Left Join (cost=0.03..492944.81 rows=276095 width=4)
-> Seq Scan on _gc_tb a (cost=0.00..3321.30 rows=120130 width=66)
-> Bitmap Heap Scan on _gc_cat b (cost=0.03..4.06 rows=2 width=70)
Recheck Cond: ((arama <@ a.arama) AND (a.arama <@ arama))
-> Bitmap Index Scan on _gc_cat_arama_gin
(cost=0.00..0.03 rows=2 width=0)
Index Cond: ((arama <@ a.arama) AND
(a.arama <@ arama))
yes these are differentsSo is each Postgres instance running in a separate container and if so are they set up the same?
Yes, is the same configuration!!
I suspect your 9.5.1 database has not been analyzed yet and therefore the statistics are off.
Do the following in the 9.5.1 database and then retry your query.
ANALYZE VERBOSE public._gc_cat;
ANALYZE VERBOSE public._gc_tb;
--
Melvin Davidson
I reserve the right to fantasize. Whether or not you
wish to share my fantasy is entirely up to you.![]()
I reserve the right to fantasize. Whether or not you
wish to share my fantasy is entirely up to you.
