From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Ed Tyrrill <tyrrill_ed(at)emc(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: |
Date: | 2007-06-26 01:07:14 |
Message-ID: | 8930.1182820034@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Ed Tyrrill <tyrrill_ed(at)emc(dot)com> writes:
> It seems to me that the first plan is the optimal one for this case, but
> when the planner has more information about the table it chooses not to
> use it. Do you think that if work_mem were higher it might choose the
> first plan again?
It's worth fooling around with work_mem just to see what happens. The
other thing that would be interesting is to force the other plan (set
enable_mergejoin = off) just to see what the planner is costing it at.
My suspicion is that the estimated costs are pretty close.
The ANALYZE stats affect this choice only in second-order ways AFAIR.
The planner penalizes hashes if it thinks there will be a lot of
duplicate values in the inner relation, but IIRC there is also a penalty
for inner duplicates in the mergejoin cost estimate. So I'm a bit
surprised that there'd be a change.
Can you show us the pg_stats rows for the join columns after analyzing
at target 10 and target 100?
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Gregory Stark | 2007-06-26 08:01:59 | Re: Volunteer to build a configuration tool |
Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2007-06-26 00:33:39 | Re: |