On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 10:25 AM, Sandeep Gupta
<gupta.sandeep@gmail.com> wrote:
@Jeff : Thanks for pointing this out. Turns out that was the case.
@Tom: Thank you for the reference to random_page_cost parameters. It would be very useful for us. Would go through the rest of the documentation as well.
I can't say what Jeff mentioned; maybe he didn't reply to the user list. Anyhow, sorry if this is repeating information.
I cannot help but point something glaring out in the EXPLAIN, though:
database 1:
Index Only Scan using tc_did_idx on tc (cost=0.00..1298125.32 rows=49987616 width=4)
database 2:
Index Only Scan using tc_did_idx on tc (cost=0.00..70.44 rows=3 width=4)
Maybe I just don't know how to read EXPLAIN plans, but it would appear that the estimated rows from the index only scan in the two plans is different by a factor of about 16.7 million. database 1 also processes about 7.7 million rows before the aggregate, where database 2 only processes about 1.3 million. For some reason, it appears that database 2 is able to eliminate far more rows more quickly, resulting in a faster query. Have both databases had VACUUM ANALYZE run on them? Are the statistics collection settings the same?
