Re: Do table-level CHECK constraints affect the query optimizer?
| От | Tom Lane |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Do table-level CHECK constraints affect the query optimizer? |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 449566.1624984976@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение |
| Ответ на | Re: Do table-level CHECK constraints affect the query optimizer? (Ron <ronljohnsonjr@gmail.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Do table-level CHECK constraints affect the query optimizer?
|
| Список | pgsql-general |
Ron <ronljohnsonjr@gmail.com> writes:
> On 6/29/21 10:41 AM, Michael Lewis wrote:
>> What's an example query that uses indexes on test and does not on live?
> SELECT COUNT(*) FROM sep_info_report_extract;
> On prod, there's a list of "Parallel Seq Scan on xxxx_partname" records in
> the EXPLAIN output, while the test system has a list of "Parallel Index Only
> Scan using ..._idx" records.
It'd be worth checking pg_class.relallvisible page counts for the
partitions on both systems. If an IOS is possible, the main thing
that might push the planner to do a seqscan instead is if it thinks
that too little of the table is all-visible, which would tend to
inflate the index-only scan towards the same cost as a regular index
scan (which'll almost always be considered slower than seqscan).
If there's a significant difference in relallvisible fractions, that
would point to something different in your VACUUM housekeeping on
the two systems.
regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: