Jean-Christophe Boggio writes:
> I did upgrade :-) But we have many users for which we don't decide on
> when they do upgrade so we have to keep compatibility with most versions
> of PG and in that particular case (non-existence of the materialized
> keyword for PG 11 and before) it is a real p
Andreas,
Le 22/11/2023 à 15:25, Andreas Kretschmer a écrit :
Am 22.11.23 um 12:38 schrieb Jean-Christophe Boggio: >> Also, adding "materialized" to both "withcwrack" and "withcwrack0"
>> CTEs gets the result in acceptable timings (a few seconds). The >>
problem with this is that we have some c
Am 22.11.23 um 12:38 schrieb Jean-Christophe Boggio:
Also, adding "materialized" to both "withcwrack" and "withcwrack0"
CTEs gets the result in acceptable timings (a few seconds). The
problem with this is that we have some clients with older versions of
PG and I guess blindly adding the "
John,
Le 22/11/2023 à 14:30, John Naylor a écrit :
Note that "vacuum full" is not recommended practice in most > situations. Among the downsides, it removes the visibility map, >
which is necessary to allow index-only scans. Plain vacuum should >
always be used except for certain dire situatio
On Wed, Nov 22, 2023 at 6:39 PM Jean-Christophe Boggio
wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I just switched from PG11 to PG15 on our production server (Version is
> 15.5). Just made a vacuum full analyze on the DB.
Note that "vacuum full" is not recommended practice in most
situations. Among the downsides, it r
Hello,
I just switched from PG11 to PG15 on our production server (Version is
15.5). Just made a vacuum full analyze on the DB.
I have a relatively simple query that used to be fast and is now taking
very long (from less than 10 seconds to 3mn+)
If I remove a WHERE condition changes the cal
