Received: from localhost (maia-2.hub.org [200.46.204.187]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6A909FB30F for ; Fri, 2 Mar 2007 12:10:38 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.187]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 40122-03 for ; Fri, 2 Mar 2007 12:10:22 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.4 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6764C9FB6BC for ; Fri, 2 Mar 2007 12:10:22 -0400 (AST) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id l22GABSA013669; Fri, 2 Mar 2007 11:10:12 -0500 (EST) To: "Alex Deucher" cc: "Jeff Frost" , "Joshua D. Drake" , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: strange performance regression between 7.4 and 8.1 In-reply-to: References: <45E73C90.2080206@commandprompt.com> Comments: In-reply-to "Alex Deucher" message dated "Fri, 02 Mar 2007 10:28:12 -0500" Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2007 11:10:11 -0500 Message-ID: <13668.1172851811@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.06 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=AWL, BAYES_50, SPF_HELO_PASS, SPF_PASS X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200703/60 X-Sequence-Number: 23465 "Alex Deucher" writes: > Anyway, new numbers after the analyze. > Unfortunately, they are improved, but still not great: Why are the index names different between the old and new servers? Is that just cosmetic, or is 8.2 actually picking a different (and less suitable) index for the c1 queries? regards, tom lane