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 E40725288B for ; Mon, 8 Aug 2005 00:48:41 -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 59195-02 for ; Mon, 8 Aug 2005 03:48:31 +0000 (GMT) Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB77052967 for ; Mon, 8 Aug 2005 00:48:30 -0300 (ADT) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j783mPn6020255; Sun, 7 Aug 2005 23:48:27 -0400 (EDT) To: Patrick Hatcher Cc: John A Meinel , "pgsql-performance@postgresql.org" Subject: Re: Slow update statement In-reply-to: <42F6BCD3.4070600@comcast.net> References: <42F4B812.7070501@comcast.net> <42F4BC61.20102@arbash-meinel.com> <42F6BCD3.4070600@comcast.net> Comments: In-reply-to Patrick Hatcher message dated "Sun, 07 Aug 2005 19:00:51 -0700" Date: Sun, 07 Aug 2005 23:48:25 -0400 Message-ID: <20254.1123472905@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.006 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=AWL X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200508/59 X-Sequence-Number: 13806 Patrick Hatcher 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