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

Re:

From: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
To: Ed Tyrrill <tyrrill_ed(at)emc(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re:
Date: 2007-06-25 23:52:09
Message-ID: 20070625235209.GG7531@tamriel.snowman.net (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
* Ed Tyrrill (tyrrill_ed(at)emc(dot)com) wrote:
> Yes, work_mem was set to 128MB for all runs.  All settings were the same
> except for the change to default_statistics_target.  I'm certainly
> memory constrained, but giving 2GB to one one session doesn't allow
> other sessions to do anything.  Possibly when we upgrade to 16GB. :-)

You might consider a smaller increase, say to 256MB, to see if that'll
switch it to a hash join (and then watch the *actual* memory usage, of
course), if you're looking for performance for this query at least.

Yeah, 2GB is what I typically run on our data warehouse box, which is a
nice dual-proc/dual-core DL385 w/ 16GB of ram. :)  The annoying thing is
that I can still run it out of memory sometimes, even w/ 16GB. :/

	Thanks,

		Stephen

In response to

  • Re: at 2007-06-25 23:39:02 from Ed Tyrrill

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Jim NasbyDate: 2007-06-26 00:00:20
Subject: Re: Database-wide VACUUM ANALYZE
Previous:From: Ed TyrrillDate: 2007-06-25 23:39:02
Subject: Re:

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