Re: 9.5alpha1 vs 9.4
От | Mkrtchyan, Tigran |
---|---|
Тема | Re: 9.5alpha1 vs 9.4 |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 63195233.2993923.1436116584403.JavaMail.zimbra@desy.de обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: 9.5alpha1 vs 9.4 (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Список | pgsql-performance |
Thanks for the hin. My bad. The backup db and 9.5 had a different type on one of the foreign-key constrains char(36) vs varchar(36). The schema was screwed couple of days ago, byt performance numbers I checked only after migration to 9.5. Sorry for the noise. Tigran. ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Tom Lane" <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> > To: "Andres Freund" <andres@anarazel.de> > Cc: "Mkrtchyan, Tigran" <tigran.mkrtchyan@desy.de>, "pgsql-performance" <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org> > Sent: Sunday, July 5, 2015 4:33:25 PM > Subject: Re: [PERFORM] 9.5alpha1 vs 9.4 > Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes: >> On 2015-07-05 13:10:51 +0200, Mkrtchyan, Tigran wrote: >>> today I have update my test system to 9.5alpha1. >>> Most of the operations are ok, except delete. >>> I get ~1000 times slower! > >>> 255.88 | 566.11 | 452 | DELETE FROM t_inodes WHERE ipnfsid=$1 AND >>> inlink = ? > >> That certainly should not be the case. Could you show the query plan for >> this statement in both versions? > > EXPLAIN ANALYZE, please. I'm wondering about a missing index on some > foreign-key-involved column. That would show up as excessive time in > the relevant trigger ... > > regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: