Slow query performance SQL 2016/SQL219 with new Cardinality Estimator

Question

We have some of our queries that are ten times slower than with the old CE ... there are a lot of sites explaining this "problem".

But here we have an example where all the time is passed is the "SQL Server parse and compile time" part ...

Plans are the same : 8% of index seek on table "T" and 92% of Clustered index update

UPDATE T
SET Value = 0.703645756
WHERE Col1 = '05/01/2022'
AND Col2 = '57XGOXYBT4OMXIFI'
AND Col3 = 372
AND Col4 = 'XX7R78OLRVJX9J2U'
AND Col5 <> 0.703645758

SQL 2008 :

SQL Server parse and compile time: CPU time = 78 ms, elapsed time = 83 ms. Table 'T'. Scan count 1, logical reads 8, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0. SQL Server parse and compile time: CPU time = 0 ms, elapsed time = 0 ms.

SQL Server Execution Times: CPU time = 0 ms, elapsed time = 0 ms.

SQL Server Execution Times: CPU time = 0 ms, elapsed time = 0 ms.

SQL Server Execution Times: CPU time = 0 ms, elapsed time = 0 ms.

SQL Server Execution Times: CPU time = 0 ms, elapsed time = 0 ms.

SQL Server Execution Times: CPU time = 0 ms, elapsed time = 0 ms.

SQL Server Execution Times: CPU time = 0 ms, elapsed time = 0 ms. Table 'Worktable'. Scan count 0, logical reads 0, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0. Table 'Worktable'. Scan count 0, logical reads 0, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.

SQL Server Execution Times: CPU time = 0 ms, elapsed time = 1 ms. Table 'Worktable'. Scan count 0, logical reads 0, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.

SQL Server Execution Times: CPU time = 0 ms, elapsed time = 0 ms.

SQL Server Execution Times: CPU time = 0 ms, elapsed time = 0 ms.

SQL Server Execution Times: CPU time = 0 ms, elapsed time = 0 ms.

SQL Server Execution Times: CPU time = 0 ms, elapsed time = 0 ms.

SQL Server Execution Times: CPU time = 0 ms, elapsed time = 1 ms.

(1 row affected)

Completion time: 2022-06-23T12:17:27.7728479+02:00

SQL 2016 : SQL Server parse and compile time: CPU time = 1078 ms, elapsed time = 1108 ms. SQL Server parse and compile time: CPU time = 0 ms, elapsed time = 0 ms. Table 'T'. Scan count 1, logical reads 9, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0. SQL Server parse and compile time: CPU time = 153 ms, elapsed time = 153 ms.

SQL Server Execution Times: CPU time = 0 ms, elapsed time = 0 ms.

SQL Server Execution Times: CPU time = 0 ms, elapsed time = 0 ms.

SQL Server Execution Times: CPU time = 0 ms, elapsed time = 1 ms.

SQL Server Execution Times: CPU time = 0 ms, elapsed time = 0 ms.

SQL Server Execution Times: CPU time = 0 ms, elapsed time = 0 ms.

SQL Server Execution Times: CPU time = 0 ms, elapsed time = 0 ms. Table 'Worktable'. Scan count 0, logical reads 0, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0. Table 'Worktable'. Scan count 0, logical reads 0, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.

SQL Server Execution Times: CPU time = 0 ms, elapsed time = 0 ms. Table 'Worktable'. Scan count 0, logical reads 0, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.

SQL Server Execution Times: CPU time = 0 ms, elapsed time = 0 ms.

SQL Server Execution Times: CPU time = 0 ms, elapsed time = 0 ms.

SQL Server Execution Times: CPU time = 0 ms, elapsed time = 0 ms.

SQL Server Execution Times: CPU time = 0 ms, elapsed time = 0 ms.

SQL Server Execution Times: CPU time = 157 ms, elapsed time = 155 ms.

(1 row affected)

Completion time: 2022-06-23T12:18:47.7376589+02:00

All the solutions to come back to the old CE are working (compatibility level, force CE, query hing, ...) but do you have encountered same thing ?

Could Microsoft make something to this ? Thanks