From: | "Craig A(dot) James" <cjames(at)modgraph-usa(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Poor performance o |
Date: | 2006-03-22 01:04:16 |
Message-ID: | 4420A290.2050908@modgraph-usa.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance |
Tom Lane wrote:
> "Craig A. James" <cjames(at)modgraph-usa(dot)com> writes:
>> It looks to me like the problem is the use of nested loops when a hash
>> join should be used, but I'm no expert at query planning.
>
> Given the sizes of the tables involved, you'd likely have to boost up
> work_mem before the planner would consider a hash join. What nondefault
> configuration settings do you have, anyway?
shared_buffers = 20000
work_mem = 32768
effective_cache_size = 300000
This is on a 4GB machine. Is there a guideline for work_mem that's related to table size? Something like, "allow 2 MB per million rows"?
I'm also curious why the big difference between my "Query #1" and "Query #2". Even though it does a nested loop, #2's outer loop only returns one result from a very tiny table, so shouldn't it be virtually indistinguishable from #1?
Thanks,
Craig
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2006-03-22 02:04:00 | Re: [GENERAL] A real currency type |
Previous Message | Jonah H. Harris | 2006-03-22 00:14:05 | Re: 8.2 planning features |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Vivek Khera | 2006-03-22 02:22:52 | Re: Best OS & Configuration for Dual Xeon w/4GB & |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-03-21 23:33:15 | Re: Poor performance o |