Rainer Pruy <[email protected]> writes:
> Normally the following Query behaves well:
> select c.*, h.*
> from Context c, Context_Hierarchy h
> where c.Idx = h.ContextIdx and c.ContextId='testID' and
> h.HierarchyName='InsuranceHierarchy' and h.ParentIdx=49292395
> ;
> QUERY
> PLAN
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Nested Loop (cost=0.00..43.57 rows=4 width=175) (actual time=0.291..0.293
> rows=1 loops=1)
> -> Index Scan using uk_context_hierarchy_01 on context_hierarchy h
> (cost=0.00..14.76 rows=4 width=108) (actual time=0.169..0.169
> rows=1 loops=1)
> Index Cond: (((hierarchyname)::text = 'InsuranceHierarchy'::text)
> AND (parentidx = 49292395))
> -> Index Scan using pk_context on context c (cost=0.00..7.20 rows=1
> width=67) (actual time=0.110..0.111 rows=1 loops=1)
> Index Cond: (c.idx = h.contextidx)
> Filter: ((c.contextid)::text = 'testID'::text)
> Total runtime: 0.388 ms
> (7 rows)
> (From a freshly started PG)
> However during a long term read-only transaction (actually just bout 15min)
> (the transaction is issuing about 10k-20k of such queries among others)
> PG is logging a number of the following:
> Mar 1 09:58:09 gaia postgres[20126]: [25-1] LOG: 00000: duration: 343.663
> ms execute S_5: select c.*, h.Idx as h_Idx, h.WbuIdx as
> h_WbuIdx, h.OrigWbuIdx as h_OrigWbuIdx, h.Ts as h_Ts, h.
> UserId as h_UserId, h.ParentIdx as h_ParentIdx, h.ContextIdx as h_ContextIdx,
> h.HierarchyName as h_HierarchyName, h.HierarchyPath as
> h_HierarchyPath from Context c, Context_Hierarchy h wher
> e c.Idx = h.ContextIdx and c.ContextId=$1 and h.HierarchyName=$2 and
> h.ParentIdx=$3
> Mar 1 09:58:09 gaia postgres[20126]: [25-2] DETAIL: parameters: $1 =
> 'testID', $2 = 'InsuranceHierarchy', $3 = '49292395'
> Mar 1 09:58:09 gaia postgres[20126]: [25-3] LOCATION: exec_execute_message,
> postgres.c:1988
That's not the same query at all, and it may not be getting the same
plan. What you need to do to check the plan is to try PREPARE-ing
and EXPLAIN EXECUTE-ing the query with the same parameter symbols
as are actually used in the application-issued query.
You might be entertained by the recent thread on -hackers about
"Avoiding bad prepared-statement plans" ...
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list ([email protected])
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
