2 postgresql identical rds instances and one is significantly slowerPostgreSQL 9.2 (PostGIS) performance...
Buying a "Used" Router
Is it possible to narrate a novel in a faux-historical style without alienating the reader?
Is layered encryption more secure than long passwords?
Why is perturbation theory used in quantum mechanics?
Why can all solutions to the simple harmonic motion equation be written in terms of sines and cosines?
3D buried view in Tikz
Is it possible to detect 100% of SQLi with a simple regex?
Boss asked me to sign a resignation paper without a date on it along with my new contract
Have any astronauts or cosmonauts died in space?
Distribution of sum of independent exponentials with random number of summands
Integral problem. Unsure of the approach.
How can I persuade an unwilling soul to become willing?
How does holding onto an active but un-used credit card affect your ability to get a loan?
PostGIS function to move a polygon to centre over new point coordinates
Does しかたない imply disappointment?
Can a Way of Shadow Monk use Shadow Step to cling to a dark ceiling?
What does @ mean in a hostname in DNS configuration?
When distributing a Linux kernel driver as source code, what's the difference between Proprietary and GPL license?
Was the Soviet N1 really capable of sending 9.6 GB/s of telemetry?
Checking if an integer permutation is cyclic in Java
How can I handle players killing my NPC outside of combat?
What is formjacking?
What is the reward?
Multiple null checks in Java 8
2 postgresql identical rds instances and one is significantly slower
PostgreSQL 9.2 (PostGIS) performance problemHow can I speed up a Postgres query containing lots of Joins with an ILIKE conditionpostgres explain plan with giant gaps between operationsSlow fulltext search due to wildly inaccurate row estimatespostgresql 9.2 hash join issueImprove UPDATE performance on big tableSorting killing my postgresql queryPostgreSQL query is slow when return LineString dataWhy is this query with WHERE, ORDER BY and LIMIT so slow?Performance difference in accessing differrent columns in a Postgres Table
I have 2 instances of free tier rds postgresql db.t2.micro
on same zone us-west2
region on 2 different accounts, using defaults at creation, Original and Copy.
Original is significantly slower than Copy.
I created a single table on the Copy using pg_dump / pg_restore after one contained on the Original which contains 100s of tables.
One that one table toto
that interests me, that lives both on Original and Copy, I got a query that runs in 4s on Original and 172ms on the Copy.
I thought as an index issue at first, that table contains only one.
I did a VACCUM FULL
, REINDEX table
, REINDEX index
to no avail.
I'm unable to get the slightest idea as to why there is such a massive discrepancy, nor have a sense as to where to begin to look at:
the only differences between the 2 instances of the db are:
the Copy has only one table and the Original has a lot of them, I'm unaware that it could lead to such a massive penalty but I'm no db pro
the table in question in Original contains one supplemental column I filled, but I can't say that this lead to the difference in performance
explain on the Copy
Sort (cost=51484.50..51484.50 rows=1 width=80) (actual time=172.788..172.789 rows=1 loops=1)
Output: "TICKER", "ISIN", "SOURCE", "TICKER", "SCORE", "TIME_STAMP_SOURCE"
Sort Key: toto."TICKER"
Sort Method: quicksort Memory: 25kB
-> Gather (cost=1000.00..51484.49 rows=1 width=80) (actual time=162.039..172.854 rows=1 loops=1)
Output: "TICKER", "ISIN", "SOURCE", "TICKER", "SCORE", "TIME_STAMP_SOURCE"
Workers Planned: 2
Workers Launched: 2
-> Parallel Seq Scan on public.toto (cost=0.00..50484.39 rows=1 width=80) (actual time=161.547..164.635 rows=0 loops=3)
Output: "TICKER", "ISIN", "SOURCE", "TICKER", "SCORE", "TIME_STAMP_SOURCE"
Filter: ((toto."TIME_STAMP_SOURCE" = '2019-02-14'::text) AND (((toto."TICKER")::text = 'AAOI US Equity'::text) OR (toto."ISIN" = 'AAOI US Equity'::text)))
Rows Removed by Filter: 196468
Worker 0: actual time=159.843..159.843 rows=0 loops=1
Worker 1: actual time=162.985..162.986 rows=0 loops=1
Planning time: 0.118 ms
Execution time: 172.894 ms
the same on Original
Sort (cost=49649.78..49649.78 rows=1 width=80) (actual time=4532.986..4532.987 rows=1 loops=1)
Output: "TICKER", "ISIN", "SOURCE", "TICKER", "SCORE", "TIME_STAMP_SOURCE"
Sort Key: toto."TICKER"
Sort Method: quicksort Memory: 25kB
-> Gather (cost=1000.00..49649.77 rows=1 width=80) (actual time=4531.345..4533.023 rows=1 loops=1)
Output: "TICKER", "ISIN", "SOURCE", "TICKER", "SCORE", "TIME_STAMP_SOURCE"
Workers Planned: 2
Workers Launched: 2
-> Parallel Seq Scan on public.toto (cost=0.00..48649.67 rows=1 width=80) (actual time=4419.506..4528.946 rows=0 loops=3)
Output: "TICKER", "ISIN", "SOURCE", "TICKER", "SCORE", "TIME_STAMP_SOURCE"
Filter: ((toto."TIME_STAMP_SOURCE" = '2019-02-14'::text) AND (((toto."TICKER")::text = 'AAOI US Equity'::text) OR (toto."ISIN" = 'AAOI US Equity'::text)))
Rows Removed by Filter: 196468
Worker 0: actual time=4198.182..4526.499 rows=1 loops=1
Worker 1: actual time=4529.205..4529.205 rows=0 loops=1
Planning time: 0.121 ms
Execution time: 4533.065 ms
postgresql amazon-rds postgresql-performance
New contributor
add a comment |
I have 2 instances of free tier rds postgresql db.t2.micro
on same zone us-west2
region on 2 different accounts, using defaults at creation, Original and Copy.
Original is significantly slower than Copy.
I created a single table on the Copy using pg_dump / pg_restore after one contained on the Original which contains 100s of tables.
One that one table toto
that interests me, that lives both on Original and Copy, I got a query that runs in 4s on Original and 172ms on the Copy.
I thought as an index issue at first, that table contains only one.
I did a VACCUM FULL
, REINDEX table
, REINDEX index
to no avail.
I'm unable to get the slightest idea as to why there is such a massive discrepancy, nor have a sense as to where to begin to look at:
the only differences between the 2 instances of the db are:
the Copy has only one table and the Original has a lot of them, I'm unaware that it could lead to such a massive penalty but I'm no db pro
the table in question in Original contains one supplemental column I filled, but I can't say that this lead to the difference in performance
explain on the Copy
Sort (cost=51484.50..51484.50 rows=1 width=80) (actual time=172.788..172.789 rows=1 loops=1)
Output: "TICKER", "ISIN", "SOURCE", "TICKER", "SCORE", "TIME_STAMP_SOURCE"
Sort Key: toto."TICKER"
Sort Method: quicksort Memory: 25kB
-> Gather (cost=1000.00..51484.49 rows=1 width=80) (actual time=162.039..172.854 rows=1 loops=1)
Output: "TICKER", "ISIN", "SOURCE", "TICKER", "SCORE", "TIME_STAMP_SOURCE"
Workers Planned: 2
Workers Launched: 2
-> Parallel Seq Scan on public.toto (cost=0.00..50484.39 rows=1 width=80) (actual time=161.547..164.635 rows=0 loops=3)
Output: "TICKER", "ISIN", "SOURCE", "TICKER", "SCORE", "TIME_STAMP_SOURCE"
Filter: ((toto."TIME_STAMP_SOURCE" = '2019-02-14'::text) AND (((toto."TICKER")::text = 'AAOI US Equity'::text) OR (toto."ISIN" = 'AAOI US Equity'::text)))
Rows Removed by Filter: 196468
Worker 0: actual time=159.843..159.843 rows=0 loops=1
Worker 1: actual time=162.985..162.986 rows=0 loops=1
Planning time: 0.118 ms
Execution time: 172.894 ms
the same on Original
Sort (cost=49649.78..49649.78 rows=1 width=80) (actual time=4532.986..4532.987 rows=1 loops=1)
Output: "TICKER", "ISIN", "SOURCE", "TICKER", "SCORE", "TIME_STAMP_SOURCE"
Sort Key: toto."TICKER"
Sort Method: quicksort Memory: 25kB
-> Gather (cost=1000.00..49649.77 rows=1 width=80) (actual time=4531.345..4533.023 rows=1 loops=1)
Output: "TICKER", "ISIN", "SOURCE", "TICKER", "SCORE", "TIME_STAMP_SOURCE"
Workers Planned: 2
Workers Launched: 2
-> Parallel Seq Scan on public.toto (cost=0.00..48649.67 rows=1 width=80) (actual time=4419.506..4528.946 rows=0 loops=3)
Output: "TICKER", "ISIN", "SOURCE", "TICKER", "SCORE", "TIME_STAMP_SOURCE"
Filter: ((toto."TIME_STAMP_SOURCE" = '2019-02-14'::text) AND (((toto."TICKER")::text = 'AAOI US Equity'::text) OR (toto."ISIN" = 'AAOI US Equity'::text)))
Rows Removed by Filter: 196468
Worker 0: actual time=4198.182..4526.499 rows=1 loops=1
Worker 1: actual time=4529.205..4529.205 rows=0 loops=1
Planning time: 0.121 ms
Execution time: 4533.065 ms
postgresql amazon-rds postgresql-performance
New contributor
add a comment |
I have 2 instances of free tier rds postgresql db.t2.micro
on same zone us-west2
region on 2 different accounts, using defaults at creation, Original and Copy.
Original is significantly slower than Copy.
I created a single table on the Copy using pg_dump / pg_restore after one contained on the Original which contains 100s of tables.
One that one table toto
that interests me, that lives both on Original and Copy, I got a query that runs in 4s on Original and 172ms on the Copy.
I thought as an index issue at first, that table contains only one.
I did a VACCUM FULL
, REINDEX table
, REINDEX index
to no avail.
I'm unable to get the slightest idea as to why there is such a massive discrepancy, nor have a sense as to where to begin to look at:
the only differences between the 2 instances of the db are:
the Copy has only one table and the Original has a lot of them, I'm unaware that it could lead to such a massive penalty but I'm no db pro
the table in question in Original contains one supplemental column I filled, but I can't say that this lead to the difference in performance
explain on the Copy
Sort (cost=51484.50..51484.50 rows=1 width=80) (actual time=172.788..172.789 rows=1 loops=1)
Output: "TICKER", "ISIN", "SOURCE", "TICKER", "SCORE", "TIME_STAMP_SOURCE"
Sort Key: toto."TICKER"
Sort Method: quicksort Memory: 25kB
-> Gather (cost=1000.00..51484.49 rows=1 width=80) (actual time=162.039..172.854 rows=1 loops=1)
Output: "TICKER", "ISIN", "SOURCE", "TICKER", "SCORE", "TIME_STAMP_SOURCE"
Workers Planned: 2
Workers Launched: 2
-> Parallel Seq Scan on public.toto (cost=0.00..50484.39 rows=1 width=80) (actual time=161.547..164.635 rows=0 loops=3)
Output: "TICKER", "ISIN", "SOURCE", "TICKER", "SCORE", "TIME_STAMP_SOURCE"
Filter: ((toto."TIME_STAMP_SOURCE" = '2019-02-14'::text) AND (((toto."TICKER")::text = 'AAOI US Equity'::text) OR (toto."ISIN" = 'AAOI US Equity'::text)))
Rows Removed by Filter: 196468
Worker 0: actual time=159.843..159.843 rows=0 loops=1
Worker 1: actual time=162.985..162.986 rows=0 loops=1
Planning time: 0.118 ms
Execution time: 172.894 ms
the same on Original
Sort (cost=49649.78..49649.78 rows=1 width=80) (actual time=4532.986..4532.987 rows=1 loops=1)
Output: "TICKER", "ISIN", "SOURCE", "TICKER", "SCORE", "TIME_STAMP_SOURCE"
Sort Key: toto."TICKER"
Sort Method: quicksort Memory: 25kB
-> Gather (cost=1000.00..49649.77 rows=1 width=80) (actual time=4531.345..4533.023 rows=1 loops=1)
Output: "TICKER", "ISIN", "SOURCE", "TICKER", "SCORE", "TIME_STAMP_SOURCE"
Workers Planned: 2
Workers Launched: 2
-> Parallel Seq Scan on public.toto (cost=0.00..48649.67 rows=1 width=80) (actual time=4419.506..4528.946 rows=0 loops=3)
Output: "TICKER", "ISIN", "SOURCE", "TICKER", "SCORE", "TIME_STAMP_SOURCE"
Filter: ((toto."TIME_STAMP_SOURCE" = '2019-02-14'::text) AND (((toto."TICKER")::text = 'AAOI US Equity'::text) OR (toto."ISIN" = 'AAOI US Equity'::text)))
Rows Removed by Filter: 196468
Worker 0: actual time=4198.182..4526.499 rows=1 loops=1
Worker 1: actual time=4529.205..4529.205 rows=0 loops=1
Planning time: 0.121 ms
Execution time: 4533.065 ms
postgresql amazon-rds postgresql-performance
New contributor
I have 2 instances of free tier rds postgresql db.t2.micro
on same zone us-west2
region on 2 different accounts, using defaults at creation, Original and Copy.
Original is significantly slower than Copy.
I created a single table on the Copy using pg_dump / pg_restore after one contained on the Original which contains 100s of tables.
One that one table toto
that interests me, that lives both on Original and Copy, I got a query that runs in 4s on Original and 172ms on the Copy.
I thought as an index issue at first, that table contains only one.
I did a VACCUM FULL
, REINDEX table
, REINDEX index
to no avail.
I'm unable to get the slightest idea as to why there is such a massive discrepancy, nor have a sense as to where to begin to look at:
the only differences between the 2 instances of the db are:
the Copy has only one table and the Original has a lot of them, I'm unaware that it could lead to such a massive penalty but I'm no db pro
the table in question in Original contains one supplemental column I filled, but I can't say that this lead to the difference in performance
explain on the Copy
Sort (cost=51484.50..51484.50 rows=1 width=80) (actual time=172.788..172.789 rows=1 loops=1)
Output: "TICKER", "ISIN", "SOURCE", "TICKER", "SCORE", "TIME_STAMP_SOURCE"
Sort Key: toto."TICKER"
Sort Method: quicksort Memory: 25kB
-> Gather (cost=1000.00..51484.49 rows=1 width=80) (actual time=162.039..172.854 rows=1 loops=1)
Output: "TICKER", "ISIN", "SOURCE", "TICKER", "SCORE", "TIME_STAMP_SOURCE"
Workers Planned: 2
Workers Launched: 2
-> Parallel Seq Scan on public.toto (cost=0.00..50484.39 rows=1 width=80) (actual time=161.547..164.635 rows=0 loops=3)
Output: "TICKER", "ISIN", "SOURCE", "TICKER", "SCORE", "TIME_STAMP_SOURCE"
Filter: ((toto."TIME_STAMP_SOURCE" = '2019-02-14'::text) AND (((toto."TICKER")::text = 'AAOI US Equity'::text) OR (toto."ISIN" = 'AAOI US Equity'::text)))
Rows Removed by Filter: 196468
Worker 0: actual time=159.843..159.843 rows=0 loops=1
Worker 1: actual time=162.985..162.986 rows=0 loops=1
Planning time: 0.118 ms
Execution time: 172.894 ms
the same on Original
Sort (cost=49649.78..49649.78 rows=1 width=80) (actual time=4532.986..4532.987 rows=1 loops=1)
Output: "TICKER", "ISIN", "SOURCE", "TICKER", "SCORE", "TIME_STAMP_SOURCE"
Sort Key: toto."TICKER"
Sort Method: quicksort Memory: 25kB
-> Gather (cost=1000.00..49649.77 rows=1 width=80) (actual time=4531.345..4533.023 rows=1 loops=1)
Output: "TICKER", "ISIN", "SOURCE", "TICKER", "SCORE", "TIME_STAMP_SOURCE"
Workers Planned: 2
Workers Launched: 2
-> Parallel Seq Scan on public.toto (cost=0.00..48649.67 rows=1 width=80) (actual time=4419.506..4528.946 rows=0 loops=3)
Output: "TICKER", "ISIN", "SOURCE", "TICKER", "SCORE", "TIME_STAMP_SOURCE"
Filter: ((toto."TIME_STAMP_SOURCE" = '2019-02-14'::text) AND (((toto."TICKER")::text = 'AAOI US Equity'::text) OR (toto."ISIN" = 'AAOI US Equity'::text)))
Rows Removed by Filter: 196468
Worker 0: actual time=4198.182..4526.499 rows=1 loops=1
Worker 1: actual time=4529.205..4529.205 rows=0 loops=1
Planning time: 0.121 ms
Execution time: 4533.065 ms
postgresql amazon-rds postgresql-performance
postgresql amazon-rds postgresql-performance
New contributor
New contributor
New contributor
asked 1 min ago
euri10euri10
1011
1011
New contributor
New contributor
add a comment |
add a comment |
0
active
oldest
votes
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "182"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
euri10 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fdba.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f230505%2f2-postgresql-identical-rds-instances-and-one-is-significantly-slower%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
0
active
oldest
votes
0
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
euri10 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
euri10 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
euri10 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
euri10 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to Database Administrators Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fdba.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f230505%2f2-postgresql-identical-rds-instances-and-one-is-significantly-slower%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown