From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: increasing collapse_limits? |
Date: | 2011-04-30 19:38:53 |
Message-ID: | C1156ACD-C74A-4F04-B011-AD374221B14D@gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Apr 30, 2011, at 7:38 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> Actually we had to solve a issue with slow SELECT. The problem was in
>> low value of JOIN_COLLAPSE_LIMITS. Can we increase a default of this
>> value. I checked some complex query, and planner needed about 200ms
>> for JOIN_COLLAPSE_LIMIT = 16. So some around 12 can be well.
>
> I'd like to see a rather larger survey of cases before changing that.
> Also, amount of memory consumed is at least as large a concern here
> as runtime.
I seem to remember that I was the last one to suggest raising these limits and someone demonstrated rather convincingly that for certain classes of queries that would cause really big problems.
...Robert
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dimitri Fontaine | 2011-04-30 19:56:48 | Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Core Team |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2011-04-30 19:34:09 | Re: CLUSTER vs toast vacuuming: there's still a problem |