From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Kim <kim@myemma.com>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] unusual performance for vac following 8.2 upgrade
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 16:11:40 -0500
Message-ID: <5414.1168549900@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1168548006.3951.564.camel@silverbirch.site>
References: <45A671CD.1050706@myemma.com>
<27939.1168539652@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<45A68C74.4080405@myemma.com>
<28949.1168544710@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<1168548006.3951.564.camel@silverbirch.site>
"Simon Riggs" <simon@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> It's not clear to me how this fix will alter the INSERT issue Kim
> mentions.
I didn't say that it would; we have no information on the INSERT issue,
so I'm just concentrating on the problem that he did provide info on.
(BTW, I suppose the slow-\d issue is the regex planning problem we
already knew about.)
I'm frankly not real surprised that there are performance issues with
such a huge pg_class; it's not a regime that anyone's spent any time
optimizing. It is interesting that 8.2 seems to have regressed but
I can think of several places that would've been bad before. One is
that there are seqscans of pg_inherits ...
regards, tom lane
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, simon@2ndquadrant.com, kim@myemma.com, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] unusual performance for vac following 8.2 upgrade
In-Reply-To: <5414.1168549900@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