| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> | 
|---|---|
| To: | Gerhard Wiesinger <lists(at)wiesinger(dot)com> | 
| Cc: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andreas Kretschmer <akretschmer(at)spamfence(dot)net>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org | 
| Subject: | Re: Major performance problem after upgrade from 8.3 to 8.4 | 
| Date: | 2010-08-30 16:22:53 | 
| Message-ID: | 11111.1283185373@sss.pgh.pa.us | 
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email | 
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance | 
Gerhard Wiesinger <lists(at)wiesinger(dot)com> writes:
> I know the drawbacks of an EAV design but I don't want to discuss that. I 
> want to discuss the major performance decrease of PostgreSQL 8.3 
> (performance was ok) to PostgreSQL 8.4 (performance is NOT ok).
> Any further ideas how I can track this down?
> Can someone explain the difference in query plan from an optimizer point 
> of view?
Since you haven't shown us the 8.3 plan, it's kind of hard to speculate ;-)
One thing that jumped out at me was that 8.4 appears to be expecting
multiple matches in each of the left-joined tables, which is why the
total rowcount estimate balloons so fast.  I rather imagine that you are
expecting at most one match in reality, else the query isn't going to
behave nicely.  Is this correct?  Are you *sure* you analyzed all these
tables?  And if that is how the data looks, where is the actual
performance problem?  A bad rowcount estimate isn't in itself going
to kill you.
FWIW, in a similar albeit toy example, I don't see any difference
between the 8.3 and 8.4 plans or cost estimates.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Gerhard Wiesinger | 2010-08-30 16:45:26 | Re: Major performance problem after upgrade from 8.3 to 8.4 | 
| Previous Message | Gerhard Wiesinger | 2010-08-30 16:11:36 | Re: Major performance problem after upgrade from 8.3 to 8.4 |