Re: Slow planning time for simple query - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Slow planning time for simple query
Date
Msg-id 9661.1528573749@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Slow planning time for simple query  (Maksim Milyutin <milyutinma@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Slow planning time for simple query  (Maksim Milyutin <milyutinma@gmail.com>)
Re: Slow planning time for simple query  (Maksim Milyutin <milyutinma@gmail.com>)
Re: Slow planning time for simple query  (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>)
Re: Slow planning time for simple query  (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-general
Maksim Milyutin <milyutinma@gmail.com> writes:
> On hot standby I faced with the similar problem.
> ...
> is planned 4.940 ms on master and *254.741* ms on standby.

Presumably the problem is that the standby isn't authorized to change
the btree index's "entry is dead" bits, so it's unable to prune index
entries previously detected as dead, and thus the logic that intends
to improve this situation doesn't work on the standby.

(I wonder though why, if you executed the same query on the master,
its setting of the index-entry-is-dead bits didn't propagate to the
standby.)

I wonder if we should extend the "SnapshotNonVacuumable" logic introduced
in commit 3ca930fc3 so that in hot standby, *all* index entries are deemed
non vacuumable.  This would essentially get rid of long standby planning
times in this sort of scenario by instead accepting worse (possibly much
worse) planner range estimates.  I'm unsure if that's a good tradeoff or
not.

            regards, tom lane


pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Adrian Klaver
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_upgrade and wraparound
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_upgrade and wraparound