Re: High-CPU consumption on information_schema (only) query

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Robins Tharakan <tharakan(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: High-CPU consumption on information_schema (only) query
Date: 2016-09-10 20:35:48
Message-ID: 11108.1473539748@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Robins Tharakan <tharakan(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> I completely agree. With 'irrelevant' I was only trying to imply that
> irrespective of the complexity of the query, a replicated box was seeing
> similar slowness whereas a Restored DB wasn't. It felt that the SQL itself
> isn't to blame here...

Without having at least compared EXPLAIN outputs from the two boxes, you
have no business jumping to that conclusion.

If EXPLAIN does show different plans, my first instinct would be to wonder
whether the pg_stats data is equally up-to-date on both boxes.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Christian Convey 2016-09-10 21:12:22 Re: [GENERAL] C++ port of Postgres
Previous Message Robins Tharakan 2016-09-10 20:27:06 Re: High-CPU consumption on information_schema (only) query