Message-ID: <491DB061.4020002@avior.ca>
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 12:07:45 -0500
From: Patrice Beliveau <pbeliveau@avior.ca>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Windows/20080914)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Difference in query plan
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------000300040204040103020204"

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------000300040204040103020204
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Thanks,

I'm already doing a vacuum full every night on all database, but the REINDEX fix it and now it's working fine

But this raise a question

1) This table is cleared every night and recomputed, does this mean that I should REINDEX every night also

2) Why this thing didn't happen in the other schema

Thanks again

Patrice Beliveau wrote:

> > I have a database in a production server (8.1.9) with to schema
> > containing the sames table same index, same every thing, but with
> > different data. When I execute a query in one schema, it take much more
> > time to execute then the other schema.
>   
[snip]

> > I'm wondering where to start searching to fix this problem
>   

> > Production server schema 1 query plan:
> > Nested Loop  (cost=569.23..634.43 rows=1 width=121) (actual
> > time=1032.811..1032.811 rows=0 loops=1)
>   
[snip]

> > Total runtime: 1034.204 ms
>   

> > Production server schema 2 query plan:
> > Nested Loop  (cost=133.42..793.12 rows=1 width=123) (actual
> > time=0.130..0.130 rows=0 loops=1)
>   
[snip]

> > Total runtime: 0.305 ms
>   

Well there's something strange - the estimated costs are fairly similar
(643.43 vs 793.12) but the times are clearly very different (1034 vs 0.3ms)

The suspicious line from the first plan is:

> >               ->  Seq Scan on mrp m  (cost=0.00..119.92 rows=5892
> > width=39) (actual time=0.343..939.462 rows=5892 loops=1)
>   

This is taking up almost all the time in the query and yet only seems to
be scanning 5892 rows.

Run a vacuum verbose against table "mrp" and see if it's got a lot of
dead rows. If it has, run VACUUM FULL and REINDEX against it and see if
that solves your problem.

I'm guessing you have / had a long-running transaction interfering with
vacuum on this table, or perhaps a bulk update/delete?

-- Richard Huxton Archonet Ltd
-- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list 
(pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: 
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance .


--------------000300040204040103020204
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=utf-8;
 name="pbeliveau.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
 filename="pbeliveau.vcf"

begin:vcard
fn;quoted-printable:Patrice B=C3=A9liveau
n;quoted-printable:B=C3=A9liveau;Patrice
org;quoted-printable:AVIOR Produits Int=C3=A9gr=C3=A9s Inc.
adr;quoted-printable:;;1001, autoroute 440 ouest;Laval;Qu=C3=A9bec;H7L 3W3;Canada
email;internet:pbeliveau@avior.ca
title:Directeur IT
tel;work:(450) 629-6200 #410
tel;fax:(514) 324-6241
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
url:www.avior.ca
version:2.1
end:vcard


--------------000300040204040103020204--