pg.ddx.io pgsql-performance@postgresql.org mailing list archive
help / color / mirror / Atom feedPSA: upgrade your extensions
4+ messages / 3 participants
[nested] [flat]
* PSA: upgrade your extensions
@ 2017-02-01 12:38 Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com>
0 siblings, 2 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Merlin Moncure @ 2017-02-01 12:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: pgsql-performance
I was just troubleshooting a strange performance issue with pg_trgm
(greatest extension over) that ran great in testing but poor in
production following a 9.6 in place upgrade from 9.2. By poor I mean
7x slower. Problem was resolved by ALTER EXTENSION UPDATE followed by
a REINDEX on the impacted table. Hope this helps somebody at some
point :-).
merlin
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: PSA: upgrade your extensions
@ 2017-02-01 15:18 Daniel Blanch Bataller <daniel.blanch.bataller@gmail.com>
parent: Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com>
1 sibling, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Blanch Bataller @ 2017-02-01 15:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com>; +Cc: pgsql-performance
Hi Merlin:
Any EXPLAIN on the query affected? size of indexes before and after reindex?
Regards,
Daniel.
> El 1 feb 2017, a las 13:38, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com> escribió:
>
> I was just troubleshooting a strange performance issue with pg_trgm
> (greatest extension over) that ran great in testing but poor in
> production following a 9.6 in place upgrade from 9.2. By poor I mean
> 7x slower. Problem was resolved by ALTER EXTENSION UPDATE followed by
> a REINDEX on the impacted table. Hope this helps somebody at some
> point :-).
>
> merlin
>
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: PSA: upgrade your extensions
@ 2017-02-01 19:48 Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com>
parent: Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com>
1 sibling, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Jeff Janes @ 2017-02-01 19:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com>; +Cc: pgsql-performance
On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 4:38 AM, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com> wrote:
> I was just troubleshooting a strange performance issue with pg_trgm
> (greatest extension over) that ran great in testing but poor in
> production following a 9.6 in place upgrade from 9.2. By poor I mean
> 7x slower. Problem was resolved by ALTER EXTENSION UPDATE followed by
> a REINDEX on the impacted table. Hope this helps somebody at some
> point :-).
>
It was probably the implementation of the triconsistent function for
pg_trgm (or I would like to think so, anyway).
But if so, the REINDEX should not have been necessary, just the ALTER
EXTENSION UPDATE should do the trick. Rebuiding a large gin index can be
pretty slow.
Cheers,
Jeff
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: PSA: upgrade your extensions
@ 2017-02-02 12:24 Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com>
parent: Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Merlin Moncure @ 2017-02-02 12:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com>; +Cc: pgsql-performance
On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 1:18 AM, Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 4:38 AM, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I was just troubleshooting a strange performance issue with pg_trgm
>> (greatest extension over) that ran great in testing but poor in
>> production following a 9.6 in place upgrade from 9.2. By poor I mean
>> 7x slower. Problem was resolved by ALTER EXTENSION UPDATE followed by
>> a REINDEX on the impacted table. Hope this helps somebody at some
>> point :-).
>
> It was probably the implementation of the triconsistent function for pg_trgm
> (or I would like to think so, anyway).
Yeah, this is definitely the case. We are seeing 50-80% runtime
reduction in many common cases, with the problematic cases being in
the upper end of that range.
> But if so, the REINDEX should not have been necessary, just the ALTER
> EXTENSION UPDATE should do the trick. Rebuiding a large gin index can be
> pretty slow.
Hm, I thought it *was* necessary, in my poking. However the evidence
is destroyed and it's not worth restaging the test, so I'll take your
word for it.
merlin
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2017-02-02 12:24 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox mbox.gz follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2017-02-01 12:38 PSA: upgrade your extensions Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com>
2017-02-01 15:18 ` Daniel Blanch Bataller <daniel.blanch.bataller@gmail.com>
2017-02-01 19:48 ` Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com>
2017-02-02 12:24 ` Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com>
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