On 10/8/17 3:37 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Jim Nasby <jim@nasby.net> writes:
>> On 10/8/17 2:34 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Why has this indexscan's cost estimate changed so much?
>
>> Great question... the only thing that sticks out is the coalesce(). Let
>> me see if an analyze with a higher stats target changes anything. FWIW,
>> the 9.6 database is copied from the 9.4 one once a week and then
>> pg_upgraded. I'm pretty sure an ANALYZE is part of that process.
>
> Hm, now that I see the SubPlan in there, I wonder whether 9.6 is
> accounting more conservatively for the cost of the subplan. It
> probably is assuming that the subplan gets run for each row fetched
> from the index, although the loops and rows-removed counts show
> that the previous filter conditions reject 99% of the fetched rows.
>
> But that code looks the same in 9.4, so I don't understand why
> the 9.4 estimate isn't equally large ...
Besides the analyze issue, the other part of this is
asdidata@graceful.hou/20106> select
pg_size_pretty(pg_relation_size('bdata_forks')); pg_size_pretty
---------------- 106 GB
(1 row)
asdidata@graceful.hou/20106> select relpages::bigint*8192/reltuples from
pg_class where relname='bdata_forks'; ?column?
------------------ 185.559397863791
(1 row)
With an effective_cache_size of 200GB that's not really helping things.
But it's also another example of the planner's reluctance towards index
scans.
--
Jim C. Nasby, Data Architect jim@nasby.net
512.569.9461 (cell) http://jim.nasby.net
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
