Re: Slow update statement

At the time this was the only process running on the box so I set
sort_mem= 228000;
It's a 12G box.

Tom Lane wrote:

>Patrick Hatcher <pathat(at)comcast(dot)net> writes:
>
>
>> Hash Join (cost=1246688.42..4127248.31 rows=12702676 width=200)
>> Hash Cond: ("outer".cus_num = "inner".cus_nbr)
>> -> Seq Scan on bcp_ddw_ck_cus b (cost=0.00..195690.76 rows=12702676
>>width=16)
>> -> Hash (cost=874854.34..874854.34 rows=12880834 width=192)
>> -> Seq Scan on cdm_ddw_customer (cost=0.00..874854.34
>>rows=12880834 width=192)
>>
>>
>
>Yipes, that's a bit of a large hash table, if the planner's estimates
>are on-target. What do you have work_mem (sort_mem if pre 8.0) set to,
>and how does that compare to actual available RAM? I'm thinking you
>might have set work_mem too large and the thing is now swap-thrashing.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
>
>