Re: [HACKERS] postgres performance

From: "Vadim B(dot) Mikheev" <vadim(at)sable(dot)krasnoyarsk(dot)su>
To: Shiby Thomas <sthomas(at)cise(dot)ufl(dot)edu>
Cc: The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] postgres performance
Date: 1998-01-16 03:30:22
Message-ID: 34BED44E.171ADC05@sable.krasnoyarsk.su
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Shiby Thomas wrote:
>
> => 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)

Indices ?
EXPLAIN ?

Vadim

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message The Hermit Hacker 1998-01-16 04:11:46 Re: [HACKERS] Re: New pg_pwd patch and stuff
Previous Message Micha Mosiewicz 1998-01-16 02:35:38 Re: [HACKERS] Re: New pg_pwd patch and stuff