Re: Table partition for very large table

From: Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>
To: Yudie Gunawan <yudiepg(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Scott Marlowe <smarlowe(at)g2switchworks(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Table partition for very large table
Date: 2005-03-28 20:19:09
Message-ID: 20050328201831.GA5019@svana.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Looks like you need to create some indexes, probably on (groupnum) and
possibly on (groupnum,sku) on both tables.

Hope this helps,

On Mon, Mar 28, 2005 at 01:50:06PM -0600, Yudie Gunawan wrote:
> > Hold on, let's diagnose the real problem before we look for solutions.
> > What does explain <query> tell you? Have you analyzed the database?
>
>
> This is the QUERY PLAN
> Hash Left Join (cost=25.00..412868.31 rows=4979686 width=17)
> Hash Cond: (("outer".groupnum = "inner".groupnum) AND
> (("outer".sku)::text = ("inner".sku)::text))
> Filter: (("inner".url IS NULL) OR (("inner".url)::text = ''::text))
> -> Seq Scan on prdt_old mc (cost=0.00..288349.86 rows=4979686 width=17)
> -> Hash (cost=20.00..20.00 rows=1000 width=78)
> -> Seq Scan on prdt_new mi (cost=0.00..20.00 rows=1000 width=78)
>
>
> > What are your postgresql.conf settings?
>
> What suspected specific setting need to be changed?
--
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> http://svana.org/kleptog/
> Patent. n. Genius is 5% inspiration and 95% perspiration. A patent is a
> tool for doing 5% of the work and then sitting around waiting for someone
> else to do the other 95% so you can sue them.

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Florian G. Pflug 2005-03-28 20:24:05 Re: Referential integrity using constant in foreign key
Previous Message Scott Marlowe 2005-03-28 20:18:23 Re: Table partition for very large table