From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Jonathan Ellis <jonathan@utahpython.org>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Premature view materialization in 8.2?
Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2007 13:40:27 -0400
Message-ID: <15092.1175881227@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <e06563880704060724n17a1de97j5d64fafc1ea95b21@mail.gmail.com>
References: <e06563880704051146r357cb15by7e498c6d796b093a@mail.gmail.com>
<28349.1175838196@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<e06563880704052251j68c86dafx5ba5a8f10fb28268@mail.gmail.com>
<261.1175840636@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<e06563880704060724n17a1de97j5d64fafc1ea95b21@mail.gmail.com>
"Jonathan Ellis" <jonathan@utahpython.org> writes:
> On 4/6/07, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Yeah, it sure is the same plan, and 8.2 seems to be a tad faster right
>> up to the hash join on user_id. Is user_id a textual datatype?
> user_id is an int; they are both C locale.
Really!? So much for that theory.
Is work_mem set similarly on both installations?
The only other thing I can think is that you've exposed some unfortunate
corner case in the hash join logic. Would you be willing to send me
(off-list) the lists of user_ids being joined? That would be the
clan_members.user_id column and the user_id column from the join of
parties and clan_participants.
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, jonathan@utahpython.org
Subject: Re: Premature view materialization in 8.2?
In-Reply-To: <15092.1175881227@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