Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of mar jul 27 20:05:02 -0400 2010:
>> Well, the issue you're hitting is that the executor is dividing the
>> query into batches to keep the size of the in-memory hash table below
>> work_mem. The planner should expect that and estimate the cost of
>> the hash technique appropriately, but seemingly it's failing to do so.
> Hmm, I wasn't aware that hash joins worked this way wrt work_mem. Is
> this visible in the explain output?
As of 9.0, any significant difference between "Hash Batches" and
"Original Hash Batches" would be a cue that the planner blew the
estimate. For Peter's problem, we're just going to have to look
to see if the estimated cost changes in a sane way between the
small-work_mem and large-work_mem cases.
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-performance by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2010-07-28 05:09:34|
|Subject: Re: Pooling in Core WAS: Need help in performance tuning. |
|Previous:||From: Jayadevan M||Date: 2010-07-28 04:27:29|
|Subject: Re: Questions on query planner, join types, and work_mem|