Understood.
Thank you so much for looking into this!
Best regards,
Kristjan
On Wed, Sep 15, 2021 at 5:34 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Kristjan Mustkivi writes:
> > On Wed, Sep 15, 2021 at 3:16 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Note the lack of any visible cast on the varchar column, in each one of
> >> thes
Kristjan Mustkivi writes:
> On Wed, Sep 15, 2021 at 3:16 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>> Note the lack of any visible cast on the varchar column, in each one of
>> these queries, even where I tried to force one to appear. There is
>> something happening in your database that is not happening in mine.
> T
On Wed, Sep 15, 2021 at 3:16 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> Note the lack of any visible cast on the varchar column, in each one of
> these queries, even where I tried to force one to appear. There is
> something happening in your database that is not happening in mine.
>
> My mind is now running to the p
Kristjan Mustkivi writes:
> Both are of type varchar(30).
Ah, right, you showed that back at the top of the thread.
> So is this something odd: Filter: (((product_code)::text = ($1)::text)
> AND ((balance_type)::text = ($4)::text)) ?
Yes, that is very darn odd. When I try this I get:
regressi
Hello!
Both are of type varchar(30).
So is this something odd: Filter: (((product_code)::text = ($1)::text)
AND ((balance_type)::text = ($4)::text)) ?
But why does it do the type-cast if both product_code and balance_type
are of type text (although with constraint 30) and the values are also
of
Kristjan Mustkivi writes:
>>> Filter: (((product_code)::text = ($1)::text) AND
>>> ((balance_type)::text = ($4)::text))
> But the Primary Key is defined as btree (cage_code, cage_player_id,
> product_code, balance_type, version) so this should be exactly that
> (apart from the extra "version" col
On Tue, Sep 14, 2021 at 5:15 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Kristjan Mustkivi writes:
> > -> Index Scan Backward using player_balance_history_idx2 on
> > mytable pbh (cost=0.70..21639.94 rows=3885 width=66) (actual
> > time=5934.153..5934.153 rows=1 loops=1)
> > Index Cond: ((
Kristjan Mustkivi writes:
> -> Index Scan Backward using player_balance_history_idx2 on
> mytable pbh (cost=0.70..21639.94 rows=3885 width=66) (actual
> time=5934.153..5934.153 rows=1 loops=1)
> Index Cond: ((cage_code = $3) AND (cage_player_id =
> $2) AND (modified_tim
I am very sorry, I indeed copy-pasted an incomplete plan. Here it is in full:
2021-09-14 06:55:33 UTC, pid=27576 db=mydb, usr=myuser, client=ip,
app=PostgreSQL JDBC Driver, line=55 LOG: duration: 5934.165 ms plan:
Query Text: SELECT * FROM myschema.mytable pbh WHERE
pbh.product_code =
On Tue, Sep 14, 2021 at 3:55 AM Kristjan Mustkivi
wrote:
> Hello Tomas,
>
> The auto explain analyze caught this:
>
> 2021-09-14 06:55:33 UTC, pid=12345 db=mydb, usr=myuser, client=ip,
> app=PostgreSQL JDBC Driver, line=55 LOG: duration: 5934.165 ms plan:
> Query Text: SELECT * FROM mysche
On Tue, 2021-09-14 at 10:55 +0300, Kristjan Mustkivi wrote:
> 2021-09-14 06:55:33 UTC, pid=12345 db=mydb, usr=myuser, client=ip,
> app=PostgreSQL JDBC Driver, line=55 LOG: duration: 5934.165 ms plan:
> Query Text: SELECT * FROM myschema.mytable pbh WHERE
> pbh.product_code = $1 AND pbh.cag
Hi Jeff,
The specialized index is present due to some other queries and the
index is used frequently (according to the statistics). I do agree
that in this particular case the index btree (cage_code,
cage_player_id, product_code, balance_type, modified_time) would solve
the problem but at the mome
Hello Tomas,
The auto explain analyze caught this:
2021-09-14 06:55:33 UTC, pid=12345 db=mydb, usr=myuser, client=ip,
app=PostgreSQL JDBC Driver, line=55 LOG: duration: 5934.165 ms plan:
Query Text: SELECT * FROM myschema.mytable pbh WHERE
pbh.product_code = $1 AND pbh.cage_player_id = $
On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 9:25 AM Kristjan Mustkivi
wrote:
>
> I have caught this with AUTOEXPLAIN:
>
> Index Cond: ((cage_code = $3) AND (cage_player_id = $2) AND
> (modified_time < $5))
> Filter: (((product_code)::text = ($1)::text) AND
> ((balance_type)::text = ($4)::text))
>
On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 9:25 AM Kristjan Mustkivi
wrote:
> SELECT
> *
> FROM
> myschema.mytable pbh
> WHERE
> pbh.product_code = $1
> AND pbh.cage_player_id = $2
> AND pbh.cage_code = $3
> AND balance_type = $4
> AND pbh.modified_time < $5
> ORDER BY
> pbh.modifie
On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 08:19:40AM -0600, Michael Lewis wrote:
> Autovacuum will only run for freezing, right? Insert only tables don't get
> autovacuumed/analyzed until PG13 if I remember right.
Tomas is talking about autovacuum running *analyze*, not vacuum.
It runs for analyze, except on parti
Autovacuum will only run for freezing, right? Insert only tables don't get
autovacuumed/analyzed until PG13 if I remember right.
On 9/13/21 3:24 PM, Kristjan Mustkivi wrote:
> Dear community,
>
> I have a query that most of the time gets executed in a few
> milliseconds yet occasionally takes ~20+ seconds. The difference, as
> far as I am able to tell, comes whether it uses the table Primary Key
> (fast) or an additional in
18 matches
Mail list logo
