From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: uher dslij <codon3@gmail.com>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Performance regressions in PG 9.3 vs PG 9.0
Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2014 17:26:37 -0400
Message-ID: <28394.1396992397@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKGDDevyYqASsJBQ8poQP9WturteSBTzPp8PHZRbc+3feLOegA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKGDDes8jznFSneY8dmHAs9my0J3JtMuksuLFvnCSGkMc+eX+Q@mail.gmail.com>
<CAKGDDevyYqASsJBQ8poQP9WturteSBTzPp8PHZRbc+3feLOegA@mail.gmail.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@postgresql.org?body=unsub%20pgsql-performance>
uher dslij <codon3@gmail.com> writes:
> The EXPLAINs all pretty much look like my original post. The planner in
> 9.2 and above is simply not using bitmap heap scans or bitmap index scans?
> What could be the reason for this?
I don't see any reason to think this is a planner regression. The
rowcount estimates are pretty far off in both versions; so it's just a
matter of luck that 9.0 is choosing a better join order than 9.3.
I'd try cranking up the statistics targets for the join columns
(particularly domain_id) and see if that leads to better estimates.
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, codon3@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Performance regressions in PG 9.3 vs PG 9.0
In-Reply-To: <28394.1396992397@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