From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: 8.4/9.0 simple query performance regression
Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2011 19:02:23 -0400
Message-ID: <14955.1307401343@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4DED4A87.7000901@agliodbs.com>
References: <4DED4A87.7000901@agliodbs.com>
Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> writes:
> Just got this simple case off IRC today:
> [ hashed versus non-hashed subplan ]
> I'm at a bit of a loss as to what's happening here.
Possibly work_mem is smaller in the second installation?
(If I'm counting on my fingers right, you'd need a setting of at least a
couple MB to let it choose a hashed subplan for this case.)
regards, tom lane
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, josh@agliodbs.com
Subject: Re: 8.4/9.0 simple query performance regression
In-Reply-To: <14955.1307401343@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox