X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64507D79B6 for ; Thu, 22 Sep 2005 18:38:49 -0300 (ADT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 24668-03 for ; Thu, 22 Sep 2005 21:38:44 +0000 (GMT) Received: from BAYC1-PASMTP04.bayc1.hotmail.com (bayc1-pasmtp04.bayc1.hotmail.com [65.54.191.164]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD566D6FDB for ; Thu, 22 Sep 2005 18:38:37 -0300 (ADT) Message-ID: X-Originating-IP: [70.50.100.93] X-Originating-Email: [pelletier_32@sympatico.ca] Received: from JP ([70.50.100.93]) by BAYC1-PASMTP04.bayc1.hotmail.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 22 Sep 2005 14:38:07 -0700 Message-ID: <007b01c5bfbe$00140290$6501a8c0@JP> From: "Jean-Pierre Pelletier" To: "Gavin M. Roy" Cc: References:

Subject: Re: Queries 15 times slower on 8.1 beta 2 than on 8.0 Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 17:38:40 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0076_01C5BF9C.781FF1D0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2670 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2670 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Sep 2005 21:38:07.0790 (UTC) FILETIME=[EBEE14E0:01C5BFBD] X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.53 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.014, FROM_ENDS_IN_NUMS=0.516, HTML_60_70=0.027, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER=0] X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200509/251 X-Sequence-Number: 14559 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0076_01C5BF9C.781FF1D0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable All indexes are there, and I've analyzed the three tables. I turned off seq scan, the query plans became identical but the = performance was not better. ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Gavin M. Roy=20 To: Jean-Pierre Pelletier=20 Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org=20 Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2005 5:32 PM Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Queries 15 times slower on 8.1 beta 2 than on = 8.0 What stood out to me the most was: On Sep 22, 2005, at 2:20 PM, Jean-Pierre Pelletier wrote: -> Seq Scan on price p (cost=3D0.00..11317.75 rows=3D581475 = width=3D4) a) is the index there, b) have you analyzed, c) perhaps the planners = have different default values for when to use an index vrs a seqscan... = if you turn off seqscan, are the timings similar? Gavin M. Roy 800 Pound Gorilla gmr@ehpg.net ------=_NextPart_000_0076_01C5BF9C.781FF1D0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

All indexes are there, and I've = analyzed the three=20 tables.

I turned off seq scan, the query plans = became=20 identical but the performance

was not better.

----- Original Message -----

From:=20 Gavin M. Roy =
To: Jean-Pierre Pelletier =

Cc: pgsql-performance@postgr= esql.org=20

Sent: Thursday, September 22, = 2005 5:32=20 PM

Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Queries = 15 times=20 slower on 8.1 beta 2 than on 8.0

What stood out to me the most was:

On Sep 22, 2005, at 2:20 PM, Jean-Pierre Pelletier = wrote:

= -> Seq Scan on price p (cost=3D0.00..11317.75 = rows=3D581475=20 width=3D4)

a) is the index there, b) have you analyzed, c) perhaps the = planners have=20 different default values for when to use an index vrs a = seqscan... if=20 you turn off seqscan, are the timings similar?

Gavin M. Roy

800 Pound Gorilla

gmr@ehpg.net

------=_NextPart_000_0076_01C5BF9C.781FF1D0--