Re: Query completed in < 1s in PG 9.1 and ~ 700s in PG 9.2
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Query completed in < 1s in PG 9.1 and ~ 700s in PG 9.2 |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 17866.1352229874@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Query completed in < 1s in PG 9.1 and ~ 700s in PG 9.2 (Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas <rr.rosas@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Query completed in < 1s in PG 9.1 and ~ 700s in PG
9.2
|
Список | pgsql-performance |
Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas <rr.rosas@gmail.com> writes: > Em 06-11-2012 16:42, Merlin Moncure escreveu: >> Hm -- looking at your 'slow' 9.2 query, it is reporting that the query >> took 3 seconds (reported times are in milliseconds). How are you >> timing the data? What happens when you run explain analyze >> <your_query> from psql (as in, how long does it take)? > The time I reported in the tables of my first message were the time > reported by pgAdmin3 (compiled from source). > But I get similar time when I run like this: > time psql -p 5432 -f slow.sql db_name > slow-9.2-again.explain > real 1m56.353s > user 0m0.068s > sys 0m0.020s > slow-9.2-again.explain: http://explain.depesz.com/s/zF1 But that again shows only five seconds runtime. If you repeat the query several dozen times in a row, run the same way each time, do you get consistent timings? Can you put together a self-contained test case to duplicate these results? I'm prepared to believe there's some sort of planner regression involved here, but we'll never find it without a test case. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: