Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1iUmbq-0007mv-66 for pgsql-bugs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 13 Nov 2019 06:58:34 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1iUmbo-0006GB-SK for pgsql-bugs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 13 Nov 2019 06:58:32 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1iUmbo-0006G4-KV for pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org; Wed, 13 Nov 2019 06:58:32 +0000 Received: from cyclops.postgrespro.ru ([93.174.131.138] helo=mail.postgrespro.ru) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1iUmbm-0002R3-1f for pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org; Wed, 13 Nov 2019 06:58:32 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.postgrespro.ru (Postfix) with ESMTP id B382B21C49C5; Wed, 13 Nov 2019 09:58:28 +0300 (MSK) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at postgrespro.ru X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=x tagged_above=-99 required=4 WHITELISTED tests=[] autolearn=unavailable Received: from [192.168.27.62] (gw.postgrespro.ru [93.174.131.141]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mail.postgrespro.ru (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 64A5F21C49BE; Wed, 13 Nov 2019 09:58:28 +0300 (MSK) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=postgrespro.ru; s=mail; t=1573628308; bh=G2fX2jEW6xoicMVYjpt5yTqpRr+O56cMh/WoQ3BkuQ8=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=dl5uXEiGEgDeKdRMwV9ArIIsqSHAV1gIe+bvzpISCVz3XzcUyAnNx6ifo1qn7AGtw 2lc2JEZDL3yms17KN0TQkLhjHHhB3exc+9lA9C8QvluQsC+wTxPJD8Jisr5owdFuEG jdy4nLgxesvAOu+5yWMy8GoJ9hHRT3ynxGe8i3OI= Subject: Re: BUG #16109: Postgres planning time is high across version - 10.6 vs 10.10 To: Mukesh Chhatani , Andres Freund Cc: pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org References: <16109-26a1a88651e90608@postgresql.org> <20191112205506.rvadbx2dnku3paaw@alap3.anarazel.de> From: Andrey Lepikhov Organization: Postgres Professional Message-ID: <25c7ebae-a3e9-5c79-23f6-cb183045d79b@postgrespro.ru> Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2019 09:58:28 +0300 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.2.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Precedence: bulk 13.11.2019 00:01, Mukesh Chhatani пишет: > Thanks for getting back to me so quickly > > Queries are same and executed in 2 different environments. There are no > long running queries on any of the environments since they are idle > right away for my testing. > > I can try full vacuum if that is recommended since I tried vacuum > analyze on the whole database in both environments. > > Datases have the same content and size is also same. > > Sorry but I am never seen this before , if the sizes vary or if the > content varies I have seen execution time being slow and not the > planning time. > > I am working on a dataset which I will share for further investigation > and analysis. Interesting. I will be waiting for your data set. -- Andrey Lepikhov Postgres Professional https://postgrespro.com The Russian Postgres Company