Re: Performance regressions in PG 9.3 vs PG 9.0

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: uher dslij <codon3(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Performance regressions in PG 9.3 vs PG 9.0
Date: 2014-04-08 21:26:37
Message-ID: 28394.1396992397@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

uher dslij <codon3(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> The EXPLAINs all pretty much look like my original post. The planner in
> 9.2 and above is simply not using bitmap heap scans or bitmap index scans?
> What could be the reason for this?

I don't see any reason to think this is a planner regression. The
rowcount estimates are pretty far off in both versions; so it's just a
matter of luck that 9.0 is choosing a better join order than 9.3.

I'd try cranking up the statistics targets for the join columns
(particularly domain_id) and see if that leads to better estimates.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jeff Janes 2014-04-08 22:51:46 Re: query against large table not using sensible index to find very small amount of data
Previous Message Robert Burgholzer 2014-04-08 21:20:19 Optimizing Time Series Access