Re: Performance With Joins on Large Tables

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Joshua Marsh" <icub3d(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: "Terje Elde" <terje(at)elde(dot)net>, "Jeff Davis" <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org, jim(at)nasby(dot)net
Subject: Re: Performance With Joins on Large Tables
Date: 2006-09-13 21:23:44
Message-ID: 16941.1158182624@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

"Joshua Marsh" <icub3d(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> Are the tables perhaps nearly in order by the dsiacctno fields?

> My assumption would be they are in exact order. The text file I used
> in the COPY statement had them in order, so if COPY preserves that in
> the database, then it is in order.

Ah. So the question is why the planner isn't noticing that. What do
you see in the pg_stats view for the two dsiacctno fields --- the
correlation field in particular?

> The system has 8GB of ram and work_mem is set to 256MB.

Seems reasonable enough. BTW, I don't think you've mentioned exactly
which PG version you're using?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2006-09-13 21:31:58 Re: sql-bench
Previous Message Joshua Marsh 2006-09-13 21:18:49 Re: Performance With Joins on Large Tables