Re: [GENERAL] Queries are taking way longer in 9.6 than 9.5 - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Melvin Davidson
Subject Re: [GENERAL] Queries are taking way longer in 9.6 than 9.5
Date
Msg-id CANu8Fiy0Ln9a8XJ+DH2NNKXAL6sLadhQGQbS_bGVZkrPaX77qg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [GENERAL] Queries are taking way longer in 9.6 than 9.5  (Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: [GENERAL] Queries are taking way longer in 9.6 than 9.5  (Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-general


On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 3:06 PM, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 1:04 PM, Ravi Tammineni
<rtammineni@partner.aligntech.com> wrote:
> Hi Chris,
>
> Here is the query and execution plan in 9.5 and 9.6.

Can you verify tblpuorderstatus and tblpuorderstatushistory have all
indexes accounted for on both servers?  It seems incredible server
would prefer wading through 11M records to 1298 nestloop.  I'm curious
what plans you get if you try playing around with:

set enable_seqscan=false;
set enable_hashjoin=false;

...but I think we have two possibilities here:
1. schema mismatch
2. planner bug

merlin


--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

I never got an answer to my question.
Have you verified that postgresql.conf is the same of both 9.5 & 9.6?

--
Melvin Davidson
I reserve the right to fantasize.  Whether or not you
wish to share my fantasy is entirely up to you.

pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Merlin Moncure
Date:
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Queries are taking way longer in 9.6 than 9.5
Next
From: Anirudh Jayakumar
Date:
Subject: [GENERAL] Read/Write operation counts