Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Join runs for > 10 hours and then fills up >1.3TB of disk space

From: "Luke Lonergan" <LLonergan(at)greenplum(dot)com>
To: <kevin(at)kevinkempterllc(dot)com>,<dev(at)archonet(dot)com>
Cc: <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Join runs for > 10 hours and then fills up >1.3TB of disk space
Date: 2008-05-16 08:36:11
Message-ID: 014F2941B0A1EA47BD61D21526B806E90162C335@MI8NYCMAIL08.Mi8.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
Try 'set enable-mergejoin=false' and see if you get a hashjoin.

- Luke

----- Original Message -----
From: pgsql-performance-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org <pgsql-performance-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org>
To: Richard Huxton <dev(at)archonet(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Sent: Fri May 16 04:00:41 2008
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Join runs for > 10 hours and then fills up >1.3TB of disk space

I'm expecting 9,961,914 rows returned. Each row in the big table  
should have a corresponding key in the smaller tale, I want to  
basically "expand" the big table column list by one, via adding the  
appropriate key from the smaller table for each row in the big table.  
It's not a cartesion product join.



On May 16, 2008, at 1:40 AM, Richard Huxton wrote:

> kevin kempter wrote:
>> Hi List;
>> I have a table with 9,961,914 rows in it (see the describe of  
>> bigtab_stats_fact_tmp14 below)
>> I also have a table with 7,785 rows in it (see the describe of  
>> xsegment_dim below)
>> I'm running the join shown below and it takes > 10 hours and  
>> eventually runs out of disk space on a 1.4TB file system
>
>> QUERY PLAN
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Merge 
>>  Join  (cost=1757001.74..73569676.49 rows=3191677219 width=118)
>
> Dumb question Kevin, but are you really expecting 3.2 billion rows  
> in the result-set? Because that's approaching 400GB of result-set  
> without any overheads.
>
> -- 
>  Richard Huxton
>  Archonet Ltd


-- 
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: kevin kempterDate: 2008-05-16 08:38:04
Subject: Re: Join runs for > 10 hours and then fills up >1.3TB of disk space
Previous:From: Richard HuxtonDate: 2008-05-16 08:18:12
Subject: Re: Join runs for > 10 hours and then fills up >1.3TB of disk space

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group