Re: Poor performance due to parallel seq scan on indexed date field - Mailing list pgsql-admin

From Jeff Janes
Subject Re: Poor performance due to parallel seq scan on indexed date field
Date
Msg-id CAMkU=1xi=reF19MUrU=1uOFCd4cwU5Suc1yyisfxC=+A8Xgsuw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Poor performance due to parallel seq scan on indexed date field  (Wells Oliver <wells.oliver@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-admin
On Wed, Jun 21, 2023 at 2:32 PM Wells Oliver <wells.oliver@gmail.com> wrote:
Dead simple date scan across a big-ish table (est. 23,153,666 rows)

Simple, but massive.

You should turn on track_io_timing (if it is not already) and then do EXPLAIN (ANALYZE, BUFFERS)

You haven't shown that poor performance is due to the parallel seq scan, only that one particular plan happens to have both of those features at the same time.  If you disable parallel queries (max_parallel_workers_per_gather=0), what plan do you get instead and how long does it take? What if you turn off enable_seqscan altogether?

Cheers,

Jeff

pgsql-admin by date:

Previous
From: kyle Hailey
Date:
Subject: Re: AWS RDS "sessions" and pg_stat_activity
Next
From: Jeff Janes
Date:
Subject: Re: Poor performance due to parallel seq scan on indexed date field