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

Re: Speed difference between select ... union select ... and select from partitioned_table

From: Pablo Alcaraz <pabloa(at)laotraesquina(dot)com(dot)ar>
To: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Speed difference between select ... union select ... and select from partitioned_table
Date: 2007-10-27 22:31:18
Message-ID: 4723BC36.8000300@laotraesquina.com.ar (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
Pablo Alcaraz wrote:
> These are the EXPLAIN ANALIZE:
>

If you raise work_mem enough to let the second query use a hash
aggregate (probably a few MB would do it), I think it'll be about
the same speed as the first one.

The reason it's not picking that on its own is the overestimate
of the number of resulting groups.  This is because
get_variable_numdistinct is not smart about append relations.
We should try to fix that sometime...



I re run the partitioned-query. it completed in 15996 seconds. It 
builded a BIG temp file:

[root(at)igor xxx]# ls -lh pgsql-data/data/16386/pgsql_tmp/
total 2.2G
-rw------- 1 postgres postgres 1.0G Oct 27 15:35 pgsql_tmp7004.0
-rw------- 1 postgres postgres 1.0G Oct 27 15:35 pgsql_tmp7004.1
-rw------- 1 postgres postgres 175M Oct 27 15:35 pgsql_tmp7004.2

work_mem=1Mb. How much do I need to raise work_mem variable? 2.2G?

Regards

Pablo

In response to

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Gregory StarkDate: 2007-10-28 00:20:26
Subject: Re: partitioned table and ORDER BY indexed_field DESC LIMIT 1
Previous:From: Luke LonerganDate: 2007-10-27 21:48:16
Subject: Re: partitioned table and ORDER BY indexed_field DESCLIMIT 1

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