| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jaime Casanova <jcasanov(at)systemguards(dot)com(dot)ec> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, decibel <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org>, psql performance list <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [PERFORMANCE] work_mem vs temp files issue |
| Date: | 2010-01-13 14:45:11 |
| Message-ID: | 10185.1263393911@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Jaime Casanova <jcasanov(at)systemguards(dot)com(dot)ec> writes:
> why we don't show some of that info in explain?
Lack of round tuits; plus concern about breaking programs that read
EXPLAIN output, which I guess will be alleviated in 8.5.
> the reason i say "most of the temp files" is that when i removed
> #ifdef HJDEBUG it says that in total i was using 10 batchs but there
> were 14 temp files created (i guess we use 1 file per batch, no?)
Two files per batch, in general --- I suppose some of the buckets
were empty.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2010-01-13 15:23:32 | Re: [PERFORMANCE] work_mem vs temp files issue |
| Previous Message | Euler Taveira de Oliveira | 2010-01-13 14:06:57 | Re: a heavy duty operation on an "unused" table kills my server |