| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
| Cc: | "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Andres Freund" <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, "Gregory Stark" <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Plan time Improvement - 64bit bitmapset |
| Date: | 2009-06-03 21:11:43 |
| Message-ID: | 25009.1244063503@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> writes:
> Since he can't share the schema, and hasn't even given much of a hint,
> I don't know whether one (or more) of the columns is a bytea filled
> with 100 MB values; and I don't remember any description of the
> hardware environment either. Since the behavior seems so
> out-of-the-ordinary, I was casting about for possible extraordinary
> characteristics of his environment which might cause it. I'm probably
> way off base....
There's a hard-wired restriction in analyze.c that makes it discard data
values wider than 1KB on-sight. So no such value will ever be found in
a statistics array. You could still have a few meg in a pg_statistics
row, I suppose, but not a really horrendous amount.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-06-03 21:24:23 | Re: Plan time Improvement - 64bit bitmapset |
| Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2009-06-03 21:05:38 | Re: Postgres delays function returning large set of data |