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

Re: BUG #4945: Parallel update(s) gone wild

From: Craig Ringer <craig(at)postnewspapers(dot)com(dot)au>
To: dan boeriu <dan(dot)boeriu(at)roost(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: BUG #4945: Parallel update(s) gone wild
Date: 2009-07-28 04:23:38
Message-ID: 1248755018.10632.180.camel@wallace.localnet (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-bugs
On Mon, 2009-07-27 at 21:56 +0000, dan boeriu wrote:

> What I noticed is that the second will not finish if the READ table has many
> rows to be read (1 million let's say) but it finishes when the read table
> has only a few 1000s of rows.
> Any idea why?

It could be that it _does_ finish ... eventually. It might be doing
something that scales very poorly with number of input rows, like a
nested loop within a nested loop.

Can you provide EXPLAIN ANALYZE output for the problem query?

Craig Ringer

In response to


pgsql-bugs by date

Next:From: Craig RingerDate: 2009-07-28 06:13:55
Subject: Re: BUG #4945: Parallel update(s) gone wild
Previous:From: FabianoDate: 2009-07-28 00:06:12
Subject: BUG #4946: bug - libiconv-2.dll

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group