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

Re: Yet another slow nested loop

From: Alexander Staubo <alex(at)bengler(dot)no>
To: Dave Dutcher <dave(at)tridecap(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-performance <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Yet another slow nested loop
Date: 2009-06-16 13:58:35
Message-ID: 88daf38c0906160658m23cdf97fs71d303a4415d6225@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 3:56 PM, Dave Dutcher<dave(at)tridecap(dot)com> wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Alexander Staubo
>>
>>    ->  Nested Loop  (cost=0.00..5729774.95 rows=10420 width=116)
>> (actual time=262614.470..262614.470 rows=0 loops=1)
>>          Join Filter: ((photos.taken_at > (event_instances."time" +
>> '-01:00:00'::interval)) AND (photos.taken_at < (event_instances."time"
>> + '07:00:00'::interval)))
>>          ->  Nested Loop  (cost=0.00..2055574.35 rows=11869630
>> width=120) (actual time=21.750..121838.012 rows=14013998 loops=1)
>
>
> Do you have any of the other enable_* options set to false?

No.

> What do you
> have random_page_cost set to?  I ask because I'm surprised to see postgres
> choose to loop when it knows it will have to loop 11 million times.

The default, ie. 4.0.

A.

In response to

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Joshua TolleyDate: 2009-06-16 14:13:22
Subject: Re: performance with query
Previous:From: Dave DutcherDate: 2009-06-16 13:56:38
Subject: Re: Yet another slow nested loop

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