Re: nested query vs left join: query planner very confused

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От David Rysdam
Тема Re: nested query vs left join: query planner very confused
Дата
Msg-id 87mwkp7mbd.fsf@loud.llan.ll.mit.edu
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: nested query vs left join: query planner very confused  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Ответы Re: nested query vs left join: query planner very confused  (David Rysdam <drysdam@ll.mit.edu>)
Список pgsql-general
On Wed, 27 Nov 2013 13:02:20 -0500, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> David Rysdam <drysdam@ll.mit.edu> writes:
> >            effective_cache_size - 12000MB
> >            shared_buffers - 1024MB
> >            random_page_cost - is commented out
> >            cpu_tuple_cost -  commented out
> >            work_mem - commented out
>
> > I assume you guys already know the default values for those last 3 on a
> > 9.0.x server...
>
> Default work_mem is only 1MB, so that probably explains why you're not
> getting a hashed subplan here.  Have them knock it up some, say on the
> order of 10MB.  (If none of your queries are any more complicated than
> this one, you could go higher.  But keep in mind that a backend can use
> work_mem per sort/hash/materialize step, not per query --- so complex
> queries can use many times work_mem.  Multiply that by the number of
> backends, and you can end up in swap hell pretty quickly with an over
> optimistic value.)

We deliberately try to keep our queries fairly simple for several
reasons. This isn't the most complicated, but they don't get much more
than this. I'll have them start with 10MB and see what they get.

Вложения

В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Tom Lane
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: nested query vs left join: query planner very confused
Следующее
От: David Rysdam
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: nested query vs left join: query planner very confused