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

Re: Optimizing a huge_table/tiny_table join

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: kynn(at)panix(dot)com
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Optimizing a huge_table/tiny_table join
Date: 2006-05-25 01:41:59
Message-ID: 7082.1148521319@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
<kynn(at)panix(dot)com> writes:
>  Limit  (cost=19676.75..21327.99 rows=6000 width=84)
>    ->  Hash Join  (cost=19676.75..1062244.81 rows=3788315 width=84)
>          Hash Cond: (upper(("outer".id)::text) = upper(("inner".id)::text))
>          ->  Seq Scan on huge_table h  (cost=0.00..51292.43 rows=2525543 width=46)
>          ->  Hash  (cost=19676.00..19676.00 rows=300 width=38)
>                ->  Seq Scan on tiny_table t  (cost=0.00..19676.00 rows=300 width=38)

Um, if huge_table is so much bigger than tiny_table, why are the cost
estimates for seqscanning them only about 2.5x different?  There's
something wacko about your statistics, methinks.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Ian WestmacottDate: 2006-05-25 03:20:24
Subject: Re: Getting even more insert performance (250m+rows/day)
Previous:From: Joshua D. DrakeDate: 2006-05-25 01:31:56
Subject: Re: Optimizing a huge_table/tiny_table join

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