| From: | Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz <gryzman(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Brian Cox <brian(dot)cox(at)ca(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Tom Lane [tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us]" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: very slow selects on a small table |
| Date: | 2009-06-18 17:12:32 |
| Message-ID: | 2f4958ff0906181012p17f4d328pf4bd8a4ab1501351@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 6:06 PM, Brian Cox<brian(dot)cox(at)ca(dot)com> wrote:
> these queries are still running now 27.5 hours later... These queries are
> generated by some java code and in putting it into a test program so I could
> capture the queries, I failed to get the id range correct -- sorry for
> wasting your time with bogus data. Below is the EXPLAIN output from the 4
> correct queries. I can't tell which one is being executed by PID 7397, but
> the query plans, except the last, do look very similar. In any event, as I
> mentioned, all 4 are still running.
this might be quite bogus question, just a hit - but what is your
work_mem set to ?
Guys, isn't postgresql giving hudge cost, when it can't sort in memory ?
--
GJ
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Brian Cox | 2009-06-18 17:16:51 | Re: very slow selects on a small table |
| Previous Message | Brian Cox | 2009-06-18 17:06:35 | Re: very slow selects on a small table |