From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Dai, Tino <tdai@loc.gov>
Cc: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org <pgsql-admin@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Disparity between 8.1.18 and 8.2.14 performance wise
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 19:07:35 -0400
Message-ID: <16222.1269299255@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1CA7FF980DA3824F9A5C31532B7A40DCC4B87E10@LCXCLMB01.LCDS.LOC.GOV>
References: <1CA7FF980DA3824F9A5C31532B7A40DCC4B87E10@LCXCLMB01.LCDS.LOC.GOV>
"Dai, Tino" <tdai@loc.gov> writes:
> After many days of googling and referring to different web pages about performance, I'm
> turning to this list for help. We have a third party application that is running on 8.1.11 and the
> vendor has told us not to upgrade the database to 8.2.
8.2 was released in 2006. 8.1 is going to be desupported entirely at
the end of 2010. You really need to be holding your vendor's feet to
the fire about supporting modern versions of Postgres, rather than
looking for workarounds.
But having said that, I think 8.1 might generate a reasonable plan if it
weren't getting misled by these useless constraints:
> -> Seq Scan on role_setting (cost=0.00..964.50 rows=1 width=70) (actual time=0.036..121.443 rows=43833 loops=1)
> Filter: (((section)::text = (section)::text) AND (ref_id = ref_id))
Can you get rid of those?
regards, tom lane
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, tdai@loc.gov
Subject: Re: Disparity between 8.1.18 and 8.2.14 performance wise
In-Reply-To: <16222.1269299255@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox