Re: Poor performance o
От | Craig A. James |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Poor performance o |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 4420A290.2050908@modgraph-usa.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Poor performance o (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Poor performance o
Re: Poor performance o |
Список | pgsql-performance |
Tom Lane wrote: > "Craig A. James" <cjames@modgraph-usa.com> writes: >> It looks to me like the problem is the use of nested loops when a hash >> join should be used, but I'm no expert at query planning. > > Given the sizes of the tables involved, you'd likely have to boost up > work_mem before the planner would consider a hash join. What nondefault > configuration settings do you have, anyway? shared_buffers = 20000 work_mem = 32768 effective_cache_size = 300000 This is on a 4GB machine. Is there a guideline for work_mem that's related to table size? Something like, "allow 2 MB permillion rows"? I'm also curious why the big difference between my "Query #1" and "Query #2". Even though it does a nested loop, #2's outerloop only returns one result from a very tiny table, so shouldn't it be virtually indistinguishable from #1? Thanks, Craig
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: