| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Arjen van der Meijden <acmmailing(at)tweakers(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Jeremy Haile <jhaile(at)fastmail(dot)fm>, Adam Rich <adam(dot)r(at)sbcglobal(dot)net>, "'Bricklen Anderson'" <banderson(at)presinet(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Configuration Advice |
| Date: | 2007-01-18 22:11:37 |
| Message-ID: | 6826.1169158297@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Arjen van der Meijden <acmmailing(at)tweakers(dot)net> writes:
> PS, In case any of the planner-hackers are reading, here are the plans
> of the first two queries, just to see if something can be done to
> decrease the differences between them.
Increase work_mem? It's not taking the hash because it thinks it won't
fit in memory ...
There is a bug here, I'd say: the rowcount estimate ought to be the same
either way. Dunno why it's not, but will look --- I see the same
misbehavior with a toy table here.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Luke Lonergan | 2007-01-18 22:41:30 | Re: Postgres and really huge tables |
| Previous Message | Jeremy Haile | 2007-01-18 21:53:21 | Re: Autoanalyze settings with zero scale factor |