Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1ZBnbU-0002PW-Rz for pgsql-performance@arkaria.postgresql.org; Sun, 05 Jul 2015 17:21:20 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with smtp (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1ZBnbU-0005N0-AG for pgsql-performance@arkaria.postgresql.org; Sun, 05 Jul 2015 17:21:20 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1ZBnWq-0000Pd-5v for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Sun, 05 Jul 2015 17:16:32 +0000 Received: from smtp-o-3.desy.de ([2001:638:700:1038::1:9c]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1ZBnWm-0001tp-7T for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Sun, 05 Jul 2015 17:16:31 +0000 X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett Received: from smtp-map-3.desy.de (smtp-map-3.desy.de [131.169.56.68]) by smtp-o-3.desy.de (DESY-O-3) with ESMTP id 35C342801FD for ; Sun, 5 Jul 2015 19:16:25 +0200 (CEST) Received: from ZITSWEEP1.win.desy.de (zitsweep1.win.desy.de [131.169.97.95]) by smtp-map-3.desy.de (DESY_MAP_3) with ESMTP id 2864B114A for ; Sun, 5 Jul 2015 19:16:25 +0200 (MEST) Received: from smtp-intra-3.desy.de (lb-40-26.desy.de) by ZITSWEEP1.win.desy.de (Clearswift SMTPRS 5.5.0) with ESMTP id ; Sun, 5 Jul 2015 19:16:25 +0200 Received: from z-mta-2.desy.de (z-mta-2.desy.de [131.169.55.136]) by smtp-intra-3.desy.de (DESY-INTRA-3) with ESMTP id B98A7114A; Sun, 5 Jul 2015 19:16:24 +0200 (MEST) Received: from z-mta-2.desy.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by z-mta-2.desy.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B32A0260077; Sun, 5 Jul 2015 19:16:24 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by z-mta-2.desy.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3CBD2601E8; Sun, 5 Jul 2015 19:16:24 +0200 (CEST) Received: from z-mta-2.desy.de ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (z-mta-2.desy.de [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id V41BAgOUfvkx; Sun, 5 Jul 2015 19:16:24 +0200 (CEST) Received: from z-mbx-2.desy.de (z-mbx-2.desy.de [131.169.55.140]) by z-mta-2.desy.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CFD8260077; Sun, 5 Jul 2015 19:16:24 +0200 (CEST) Date: Sun, 5 Jul 2015 19:16:24 +0200 (CEST) From: "Mkrtchyan, Tigran" To: Tom Lane Cc: Andres Freund , pgsql-performance Message-ID: <63195233.2993923.1436116584403.JavaMail.zimbra@desy.de> In-Reply-To: <10845.1436106805@sss.pgh.pa.us> References: <1897514812.2949286.1436094651680.JavaMail.zimbra@desy.de> <20150705125403.GD24494@alap3.anarazel.de> <10845.1436106805@sss.pgh.pa.us> Subject: Re: 9.5alpha1 vs 9.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Zimbra 8.6.0_GA_1169 (ZimbraWebClient - FF38 (Linux)/8.6.0_GA_1169) Thread-Topic: 9.5alpha1 vs 9.4 Thread-Index: EwL39qMGsneGFls39szsJl0i0SL+9g== 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 Thanks for the hin. My bad. The backup db and 9.5 had a different type on one of the foreign-key constrains char(36) vs varchar(36). The schema was screwed couple of days ago, byt performance numbers I checked only after migration to 9.5. Sorry for the noise. Tigran. ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Tom Lane" > To: "Andres Freund" > Cc: "Mkrtchyan, Tigran" , "pgsql-performance" > Sent: Sunday, July 5, 2015 4:33:25 PM > Subject: Re: [PERFORM] 9.5alpha1 vs 9.4 > Andres Freund writes: >> 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? > > EXPLAIN ANALYZE, please. I'm wondering about a missing index on some > foreign-key-involved column. That would show up as excessive time in > the relevant trigger ... > > 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