X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1741D528D7 for ; Fri, 22 Jul 2005 11:51:35 -0300 (ADT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 04076-08 for ; Fri, 22 Jul 2005 14:51:17 +0000 (GMT) Received: from colo.samason.me.uk (unknown [69.55.228.22]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FCE25288B for ; Fri, 22 Jul 2005 11:51:17 -0300 (ADT) Received: from colo.samason.me.uk (colo [69.55.228.22]) by colo.samason.me.uk (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j6MEpMQo038585 for ; Fri, 22 Jul 2005 15:51:22 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from sam@colo.samason.me.uk) Received: (from sam@localhost) by colo.samason.me.uk (8.12.11/8.12.11/Submit) id j6MEpM8S038584 for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Fri, 22 Jul 2005 15:51:22 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from sam) Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 15:51:22 +0100 From: Sam Mason To: Postgresql Performance Subject: Re: Planner doesn't look at LIMIT? Message-ID: <20050722145122.GL62747@colo.samason.me.uk> Mail-Followup-To: Sam Mason , Postgresql Performance References: <758d5e7f0507220210bfa4978@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <758d5e7f0507220210bfa4978@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests= X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200507/349 X-Sequence-Number: 13590 Dawid Kuroczko wrote: >work_mem = 102400 >...I tried tweaking cpu_*, work_mem, effective_cache and so on, but without >any luck. I'm hoping you didn't tweak it enough! I posted something similar this a while ago, but haven't since got around to figuring out a useful test case to send to the list. Try reducing your work_mem down to 1000 or so and things should start doing what you expect. Sam