From: | Victor Yegorov <vyegorov(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Andrey Lizenko <lizenko79(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: query plan question, nested loop vs hash join |
Date: | 2014-10-05 19:18:32 |
Message-ID: | CAGnEboifi+E_cMRZLbH5grhGeonVwvzF-01Ev=h64--WFuMd6Q@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
2014-10-05 21:57 GMT+03:00 Andrey Lizenko <lizenko79(at)gmail(dot)com>:
> Increasing of 'effective_cache_size' leads to similar thing with
> mergejoin,
> other options (work_mem, shared_buffers. etc) do not change anything.
>
I think increasing `work_mem` should have effects, as plan with `Nested
Loop` is using disk-based sort.
Increase it till you'll stop seeing `external sort` in the EXPLAIN output.
Something like '10MB' should do.
Also, it'd be handy if you could provide `EXPLAIN (analyze, buffers)`
output along with the results of these queries:
SELECT name,setting,source FROM pg_settings WHERE name ~ 'cost' AND NOT
name ~ 'vacuum';
SELECT name,setting,source FROM pg_settings WHERE NOT source IN
('default','override');
And describe your setup: what OS? how much RAM? what kind of disks? RAID?
--
Victor Y. Yegorov
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2014-10-05 19:47:52 | Re: query plan question, nested loop vs hash join |
Previous Message | Andrey Lizenko | 2014-10-05 18:57:18 | query plan question, nested loop vs hash join |