| From: | <dev(at)archonet(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | <sszabo(at)megazone23(dot)bigpanda(dot)com>, <SJohnson6(at)bcbsm(dot)com>, <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: question about efficiency |
| Date: | 2002-11-11 18:34:24 |
| Message-ID: | 49166.192.168.1.32.1037039664.squirrel@mainbox.archonet.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
> Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone23(dot)bigpanda(dot)com> writes:
>> It's basically converted it into a three way join.
>
> More to the point, an *unconstrained* join between "claimsum2001
> as claimsum2001" and the intended joined table. The reason it
> ran for so long was it was generating a huge number of rows ---
> as many as would be in the cross product.
Would it be possible to have some sort of configurable limit on this:
max_result_set_size = 10,000,000
max_result_set_action = ignore | debug | warn | error
The planner knows how many rows it's expecting to return, and a warning
message would show up unconstrained queries like this.
- Richard Huxton
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2002-11-11 19:17:27 | Re: Hardware estimation |
| Previous Message | scott.marlowe | 2002-11-11 18:25:45 | Re: Upgrade to dual processor machine? |