From: Christoph Berg <cb@df7cb.de>
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: RT3.4 query needed a lot more tuning with 9.2 than it did with 8.1
Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 23:48:20 -0700
Message-ID: <20130515064819.GD704@msgid.df7cb.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1583.1367858328@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <20130430112055.GA27525@msgid.df7cb.de>
<1583.1367858328@sss.pgh.pa.us>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@postgresql.org?body=unsub%20pgsql-performance>
Re: Tom Lane 2013-05-06 <1583.1367858328@sss.pgh.pa.us>
> The newer rowcount estimates are much further away from reality:
>
> > Unique (cost=1117.67..1118.46 rows=9 width=1115) (actual time=82.646..85.695 rows=439 loops=1)
>
> > Unique (cost=784205.94..796940.08 rows=145533 width=1061) (actual time=9710.683..9713.175 rows=439 loops=1)
>
> Has the new DB been analyzed? Maybe you had custom stats targets in
> the old DB that didn't get copied to the new one?
The new DB was analyzed with various stats targets, including values
that were higher that anything we would have used in 8.1. I don't
think we had per-table settings in there (the actual DB is now gone
for good).
Christoph
--
cb@df7cb.de | http://www.df7cb.de/
--
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: cb@df7cb.de
Subject: Re: RT3.4 query needed a lot more tuning with 9.2 than it did with 8.1
In-Reply-To: <20130515064819.GD704@msgid.df7cb.de>
* 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