From: | Gerhard Wiesinger <lists(at)wiesinger(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | 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 16:11:36 |
Message-ID: | alpine.LFD.2.01.1008301808330.31277@bbs.intern |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Mon, 30 Aug 2010, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> 2010/8/30 Gerhard Wiesinger <lists(at)wiesinger(dot)com>:
>> On Mon, 30 Aug 2010, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>>
>>> Hello
>>>
>>> 2010/8/30 Andreas Kretschmer <akretschmer(at)spamfence(dot)net>:
>>>>
>>>> Gerhard Wiesinger <lists(at)wiesinger(dot)com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I know that the data model is key/value pairs but it worked well in 8.3.
>>>>> I need this flexibility.
>>>>>
>>>>> Any ideas?
>>>>
>>>> If i understand the query correctly it's a pivot-table, right?
>>>>
>>>
>>> no - it's just EAV table on very large data :(
>>
>> Yes, it is an EAV table, but with query space comparable low (Max. 1 day out
>> of years, typically 5mins out of years).
>>
>
> it is irelevant - there are repeated seq scans - so you need a
> partitioning or classic table - maybe materialized views can help
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?
Thnx.
Ciao,
Gerhard
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-08-30 16:22:53 | Re: Major performance problem after upgrade from 8.3 to 8.4 |
Previous Message | Jose Ildefonso Camargo Tolosa | 2010-08-30 16:09:19 | Re: Performance on new 64bit server compared to my 32bit desktop |