Re: Substantial different index use between 9.5 and 9.6

Thanks Tom.

First, this wasn't a migration but new db loaded from scratch (if that
matters).

As per the end of the original post "I have vacuum analysed both
tables".  I assume this is what you meant?

My gut feel was that it isn't a postgis issue since the third example I
gave uses the index, but I will take it up with them too.

Rgds


Bill

On 2/12/2016 10:48 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bill Measday <bill@measday.com> writes:
>> Substantial different index use between 9.5 and 9.6
> Maybe you missed an ANALYZE after migrating?  The plan difference
> seems to be due to a vast difference in rowcount estimate for the
> m_elevations condition:
>
>>        ->  Bitmap Heap Scan on m_elevations e
>> (cost=282802.21..37401439.43 rows=3512160 width=8)
>>        ->  Seq Scan on m_elevations e
>> (cost=10000000000.00..13296950520.12 rows=3512159563 width=8)
> If you don't know where that factor-of-1000 came from, maybe take
> it up with the postgis folk.  It'd mostly be coming out of their
> selectivity estimation routines.
>
>             regards, tom lane