| From: | Steve Singer <ssinger(at)ca(dot)afilias(dot)info> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: slow bitmap heap scans on pg 9.2 |
| Date: | 2013-04-10 23:54:09 |
| Message-ID: | 5165FBA1.90704@ca.afilias.info |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On 13-04-10 02:06 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 6:49 AM, Steve Singer <ssinger(at)ca(dot)afilias(dot)info
> <mailto:ssinger(at)ca(dot)afilias(dot)info>> wrote:
>
> I think the index recheck means your bitmap is overflowing (i.e. needing
> more space than work_mem) and so keeping only the pages which have at
> least one match, which means all rows in those pages need to be
> rechecked. How many rows does the table have? You might be essentially
> doing a seq scan, but with the additional overhead of the bitmap
> machinery. Could you do "explain (analyze,buffers)", preferably with
> track_io_timing set to on?
>
table_b has 1,530,710,469 rows
Attached is the output with track_io_timings and buffers.
> Cheers,
>
> Jeff
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| hashjoin_buffers.txt | text/plain | 4.2 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Luigi Saggese | 2013-04-11 07:47:20 | Performance ts_vector fulltext search |
| Previous Message | Nik Tek | 2013-04-10 22:05:55 | Re: [ADMIN] Postgres log(pg_logs) have lots of message |