Re: A better way than tweaking NTUP_PER_BUCKET
От | Simon Riggs |
---|---|
Тема | Re: A better way than tweaking NTUP_PER_BUCKET |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+U5nMJsGwNV+Z8FMAcfNLJ30Ya-yKzhzZrVdjN+bY81gMX6dQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: A better way than tweaking NTUP_PER_BUCKET (Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: A better way than tweaking NTUP_PER_BUCKET
Re: A better way than tweaking NTUP_PER_BUCKET |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 27 January 2014 17:44, Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> wrote: > This topic is interesting - we found very bad performance with hashing large > tables with high work_mem. MergeJoin with quicksort was significantly > faster. I've seen this also. > I didn't deeper research - there is a possibility of virtualization > overhead. I took measurements and the effect was repeatable and happened for all sizes of work_mem, but nothing more to add. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: