Re: [HACKERS] postgres performance

From: Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: sthomas(at)cise(dot)ufl(dot)edu (Shiby Thomas)
Cc: scrappy(at)hub(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] postgres performance
Date: 1998-01-16 00:26:45
Message-ID: 199801160026.TAA22111@candle.pha.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

>
>
> => There may be optimizations in the 2.6 libraries that would improve
> => performance, but I wouldn't suspect that it would make *that* big of a
> => difference. What is your SQL/join statemnt? How are you running
> => postmaster? What does 'explain' show?
> =>
> The complete query is this:
>
> select item1, item2, count(t1.tid) into table f2_temp from data t1, data t2,
> c2
> where t1.item = c2.item1 and t2.item = c2.item2 and t1.tid = t2.tid group by
> ite
> m1, item2
>
> data is a table with 2 integer columns (tid, item) and it has ~300K records
> c2 is a table (item1, item2), both integers and has ~1.5K records.
>
> I was directly running postgres with the -B and -S flags to give more buffers
> and sortMem. I also tried several join plans by the -f flags. Hash join works
> the best and that itself is too slow (perhaps due to the self join)
>

I have a possible workaround. Turn GEQO on:

SET GEQO ON=1

and try it. Let us know.

--
Bruce Momjian
maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message neil d. quiogue 1998-01-16 01:04:10 Re: [HACKERS] Re: [QUESTIONS] Arrays (inserting and removing)
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 1998-01-15 23:41:08 Re: [HACKERS] Re: varchar() troubles (fwd)