Re: [PERFORMANCE] work_mem vs temp files issue

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Jaime Casanova <jcasanov(at)systemguards(dot)com(dot)ec>, 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 16:53:31
Message-ID: 14395.1263401611@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Yeah. My question is whether it's acceptable to add an extra line to
> the EXPLAIN output for every hash join, even w/o ANALYZE.

We could add it if either VERBOSE or ANALYZE appears. Not sure if
that's just too much concern for backwards compatibility, though.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2010-01-13 17:02:34 Re: [PERFORMANCE] work_mem vs temp files issue
Previous Message Scott Marlowe 2010-01-13 16:52:23 Re: a heavy duty operation on an "unused" table kills my server