Re: slow bitmap heap scans on pg 9.2

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: Raw Message | Whole Thread | 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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  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