| From: | Robins Tharakan <tharakan(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Subject: | Re: High-CPU consumption on information_schema (only) query |
| Date: | 2016-09-10 21:25:38 |
| Message-ID: | CAEP4nAy9096QjYwuQc4ggas04f9LOAXwqaeQjuUoYT89pY8MyQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>
>
> 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
>
Thanks. EXPLAIN plans were different but (don't have them now and) didn't
know system catalogs were so severely affected by outdated statistics as
well (which is why I was looking for any other reasons I might be missing). I
reckon an ANALYSE; should solve this? ... Would get back if I have
something else to offer.
-
robins
--
-
robins
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2016-09-10 22:20:08 | Re: [GENERAL] C++ port of Postgres |
| Previous Message | Christian Convey | 2016-09-10 21:12:22 | Re: [GENERAL] C++ port of Postgres |