Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1ZBjT6-0000a9-Mp for pgsql-performance@arkaria.postgresql.org; Sun, 05 Jul 2015 12:56:24 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with smtp (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1ZBjT6-00069d-5L for pgsql-performance@arkaria.postgresql.org; Sun, 05 Jul 2015 12:56:24 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:1501:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1ZBjQt-0004He-U1 for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Sun, 05 Jul 2015 12:54:08 +0000 Received: from mail.anarazel.de ([217.115.131.40]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1ZBjQr-0004l4-1B for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Sun, 05 Jul 2015 12:54:06 +0000 Received: from intern.anarazel.de (p5DDC7734.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [93.220.119.52]) (Authenticated sender: andres@anarazel.de) by mail.anarazel.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7E90C860002; Sun, 5 Jul 2015 14:54:03 +0200 (CEST) Date: Sun, 5 Jul 2015 14:54:03 +0200 From: Andres Freund To: "Mkrtchyan, Tigran" Cc: pgsql-performance Subject: Re: 9.5alpha1 vs 9.4 Message-ID: <20150705125403.GD24494@alap3.anarazel.de> References: <1897514812.2949286.1436094651680.JavaMail.zimbra@desy.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1897514812.2949286.1436094651680.JavaMail.zimbra@desy.de> X-Pg-Spam-Score: -4.8 (----) List-Archive: List-Help: List-ID: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Mailing-List: pgsql-performance Precedence: bulk Sender: pgsql-performance-owner@postgresql.org Hi, On 2015-07-05 13:10:51 +0200, Mkrtchyan, Tigran wrote: > today I have update my test system to 9.5alpha1. > Most of the operations are ok, except delete. > I get ~1000 times slower! > 255.88 | 566.11 | 452 | DELETE FROM t_inodes WHERE ipnfsid=$1 AND inlink = ? That certainly should not be the case. Could you show the query plan for this statement in both versions? Any chance that there's a parameter type mismatch for $1? Greetings, Andres Freund -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance