From: | Jim Nasby <jnasby(at)enova(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Problems with hash join over nested loop |
Date: | 2013-10-29 16:52:32 |
Message-ID: | 526FE7D0.9000605@enova.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On 10/29/13 11:45 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Jim Nasby <jnasby(at)enova(dot)com> writes:
>> I'm also wondering if it's time to raise those limits.
>
> Yeah, possibly. The current default values were set on machines much
> smaller/slower than most current hardware.
>
> I think also that the collapse limits were invented mainly to keep people
> out of GEQO's clutches, but we've made some significant fixes in GEQO
> since then. Maybe the real answer is to make the default collapse limits
> much higher, and lower geqo_threshold to whatever we think the threshold
> of pain is for applying the regular planner.
In my test case geqo does seem to do a good job. I'll see if I can get some data on how number of relations affects planning time... I don't get much of a warm fuzzy about lowering geqo...
--
Jim Nasby, Lead Data Architect (512) 569-9461
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2013-10-29 18:20:23 | Re: Problems with hash join over nested loop |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2013-10-29 16:45:14 | Re: Problems with hash join over nested loop |