Re: [PERFORMANCE] work_mem vs temp files issue

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Jaime Casanova <jcasanov(at)systemguards(dot)com(dot)ec>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, decibel <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org>, psql performance list <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [PERFORMANCE] work_mem vs temp files issue
Date: 2010-01-13 16:24:09
Message-ID: 603c8f071001130824u3e0be910lfea14c3e475c8256@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 11:14 AM, Jaime Casanova
<jcasanov(at)systemguards(dot)com(dot)ec> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 11:11 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> Well, what about when we're just doing EXPLAIN, not EXPLAIN ANALYZE?
>> It'll add another line to the output for the expected number of
>> batches.
>
> and when we are in EXPLAIN ANALYZE the real number as well?

Yeah. My question is whether it's acceptable to add an extra line to
the EXPLAIN output for every hash join, even w/o ANALYZE.

...Robert

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Scott Marlowe 2010-01-13 16:52:23 Re: a heavy duty operation on an "unused" table kills my server
Previous Message Robert Haas 2010-01-13 16:23:00 Re: a heavy duty operation on an "unused" table kills my server