From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Sanyo Moura <sanyo.moura@tatic.net>
Cc: pgsql-performance@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Query with high planning time at version 11.1 compared versions 10.5 and 11.0
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2018 10:00:08 -0500
Message-ID: <793.1543330808@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAO698qZnrxoZu7MEtfiJmpmUtz3AVYFVnwzR+pqjF=rmKBTgpw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAO698qZnrxoZu7MEtfiJmpmUtz3AVYFVnwzR+pqjF=rmKBTgpw@mail.gmail.com>
Sanyo Moura <sanyo.moura@tatic.net> writes:
> And below are the times generated by EXPLAIN ANALYZE:
> 10.5
> Planning time: 126.080 ms
> Execution time: 2.306 ms
> 11.0
> Planning Time: 7.238 ms
> Planning Time: 2.638 ms
> 11.5 (I assume you mean 11.1 here)
> Planning Time: 15138.533 ms
> Execution Time: 2.310 ms
There were no changes between 11.0 and 11.1 that look like they'd affect
planning time. Nor does it seem particularly credible that planning time
would have dropped by a factor of 15 between 10.x and 11.x, especially
not given that the resulting plan didn't change. I think you've got some
external factor causing long planning times --- maybe something taking an
exclusive lock on one of the tables, or on pg_statistic?
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, sanyo.moura@tatic.net, pgsql-performance@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Query with high planning time at version 11.1 compared versions 10.5 and 11.0
In-Reply-To: <793.1543330808@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