| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Ross J(dot) Reedstrom" <reedstrm(at)rice(dot)edu> |
| Cc: | Rainer Mager <rmager(at)vgkk(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Admin <pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: High memory usage |
| Date: | 2001-06-21 02:52:28 |
| Message-ID: | 11773.993091948@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-admin pgsql-jdbc pgsql-patches |
"Ross J. Reedstrom" <reedstrm(at)rice(dot)edu> writes:
> My guess is it's an interaction of the optimizer with the plan for this
> query, which might have many, nearly identical cost plans, since 8 of
> the 9 tables are actually the same table.
Yes, I suspect the same. A large fraction of the possible subplans
would have exactly identical costs, which would keep the planner from
discarding any of them (normally, it drops clearly-inferior subplans
instantly, which does a great deal to limit exponential search
behavior). It doesn't help any that the WHERE conditions are all
so similar, either.
I have a strong suspicion that the database schema is poorly thought
out, but lacking any concrete info, it's hard to offer suggestions
for improvement.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2001-06-21 03:51:31 | Re: Gradual increase in CPU utilization by postmaster |
| Previous Message | Rainer Mager | 2001-06-21 02:17:13 | RE: High memory usage |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Moses | 2001-06-21 09:20:38 | Postgresql for win2k |
| Previous Message | Rainer Mager | 2001-06-21 02:17:13 | RE: High memory usage |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Karel Zak | 2001-06-21 12:00:03 | Re: nocreatetable for 7.1.2 |
| Previous Message | Rainer Mager | 2001-06-21 02:17:13 | RE: High memory usage |