From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Patrick Hatcher <pathat@comcast.net>
Cc: John A Meinel <john@arbash-meinel.com>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Slow update statement
Date: Sun, 07 Aug 2005 23:48:25 -0400
Message-ID: <20254.1123472905@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <42F6BCD3.4070600@comcast.net>
References: <42F4B812.7070501@comcast.net>
<42F4BC61.20102@arbash-meinel.com>
<42F6BCD3.4070600@comcast.net>
Patrick Hatcher <pathat@comcast.net> writes:
> Hash Join (cost=1246688.42..4127248.31 rows=12702676 width=200)
> Hash Cond: ("outer".cus_num = "inner".cus_nbr)
> -> Seq Scan on bcp_ddw_ck_cus b (cost=0.00..195690.76 rows=12702676
> width=16)
> -> Hash (cost=874854.34..874854.34 rows=12880834 width=192)
> -> Seq Scan on cdm_ddw_customer (cost=0.00..874854.34
> rows=12880834 width=192)
Yipes, that's a bit of a large hash table, if the planner's estimates
are on-target. What do you have work_mem (sort_mem if pre 8.0) set to,
and how does that compare to actual available RAM? I'm thinking you
might have set work_mem too large and the thing is now swap-thrashing.
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, pathat@comcast.net, john@arbash-meinel.com
Subject: Re: Slow update statement
In-Reply-To: <20254.1123472905@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