Anders Steinlein <anders@e5r.no> writes: > So I don't understand this big difference? Because it does seem like citext > is indeed the difference.
It seems odd to me too. I'm not at all surprised that citext comparison is way slower than text, but I am surprised that you don't see that on 9.4 as well.
Indeed. But also, how come this is part of the planner time? I would think that would be part of the execution time? (Just a detail I'm curious about.)
Is lc_ctype the same in both installs?
Yes, lc_ctype is also nb_NO.UTF-8 on both installs.
For that matter, is the underlying libc the same? We have seen large performance discrepancies between different libc versions in this area.
This they most definitely are not. 9.4 was running on an old box, Ubuntu 12.04, while 12 is on an up-to-date Ubuntu 18.04 LTS. AFAICS, 2.15 on the 9.4 box and 2.27 on the 12 box.
If you're interested in digging further, getting a "perf" profile while running the problem query over and over would likely yield some insight about where the time is going.
I collected a profile now, but I've never done this before so I'm unsure how to read the report. I'll email you directly with a link to the perf.data file, if you would be so kind as to take a quick look. From what little I think I understand, towlower from libc seems to take up 32% of the total time, although that by itself doesn't seem to explain almost 2 second planner time vs. 20ms... Should really citext/libc string comparison "issues" cause this order of magnitude slower planner time?
