| From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Mkrtchyan, Tigran" <tigran(dot)mkrtchyan(at)desy(dot)de>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, pgsql-performance <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: 9.5alpha1 vs 9.4 |
| Date: | 2015-07-06 16:45:33 |
| Message-ID: | 559AB0AD.1060509@agliodbs.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On 07/05/2015 10:16 AM, Mkrtchyan, Tigran wrote:
> Thanks for the hin. My bad. The backup db and 9.5 had a different type on
> one of the foreign-key constrains char(36) vs varchar(36).
>
> The schema was screwed couple of days ago, byt performance numbers I checked only
> after migration to 9.5.
Thank you for testing!
Can you re-run your tests with the fixed schema? How does it look?
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Steve Crawford | 2015-07-06 16:56:18 | Re: New server: SSD/RAID recommendations? |
| Previous Message | Merlin Moncure | 2015-07-06 16:40:27 | Re: Hmmm... why does pl/pgsql code parallelise so badly when queries parallelise fine? Anyone else seen this? |