From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Carson, Leonard <lcarson@sdsc.edu>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: views much slower in 9.3 than 8.4
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2015 19:04:22 -0400
Message-ID: <13022.1426806262@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <66DCD6CD-90FC-4BD8-BF06-E7A4EB3005EC@ucsd.edu>
References: <1265DCF8-67C3-4FF3-8737-B2798EE06E25@ucsd.edu>
<9C8B9906-D76A-48EE-AED9-516AFD3A4725@ucsd.edu>
<5424.1426718490@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<66DCD6CD-90FC-4BD8-BF06-E7A4EB3005EC@ucsd.edu>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@postgresql.org?body=unsub%20pgsql-performance>
"Carson, Leonard" <lcarson@sdsc.edu> writes:
> Here are the 3 views and some timing notes:
> http://pgsql.privatepaste.com/decae31693#
That doesn't really leave us any wiser than before, unfortunately.
It's clear that the root of the problem is the drastic underestimation of
the size of the rq/a join, but it's not clear why that's happening, nor
why 8.4 would not have fallen into the same trap.
Would it be possible to provide the data in the join columns involved in
that part of the query? To wit
requests.account_id
requests.start_date
allocations.account_id
allocations.initial_start_date
allocations.resource_id
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
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-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, lcarson@sdsc.edu
Subject: Re: views much slower in 9.3 than 8.4
In-Reply-To: <13022.1426806262@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