Received: from maia.hub.org (maia-3.hub.org [200.46.204.243])
	by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E949B1337B4A
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@mail.postgresql.org>;
	Sun, 21 Nov 2010 13:16:12 -0400 (AST)
Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86])
	by maia.hub.org (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.243]) (amavisd-maia,
	port 10024) with ESMTP id 89914-07
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@mail.postgresql.org>;
	Sun, 21 Nov 2010 17:16:05 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130])
	by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 750441337B2F
	for <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>;
	Sun, 21 Nov 2010 13:16:05 -0400 (AST)
Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id oALHG1Mp022587;
	Sun, 21 Nov 2010 12:16:01 -0500 (EST)
To: tv@fuzzy.cz
cc: "Humair Mohammed" <humairm@hotmail.com>, pavel.stehule@gmail.com,
	pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Query Performance SQL Server vs. Postgresql 
In-reply-to: <3ba1d0462bc7df1c3eb5a6d4777ce08a.squirrel@sq.gransy.com> 
References: <COL115-W5250BF8BDC50E0A64DABE4A8360@phx.gbl>
	<AANLkTin+MPhrYUzkCZjdAMLhF3KKZCCuvDm0=Npf9jz7@mail.gmail.com>,
	<COL115-W3987D9D7DE908C5C47792DA8380@phx.gbl>
	<AANLkTi=yFV69yNZpHzKiZRtZ0X0PtKcpOrMNNkAo+Si6@mail.gmail.com>,
	<COL115-W186A7B93051E6907958ED6A8380@phx.gbl>,
	<AANLkTinQmaQ5Ui-vQwfqWFtOTCj76NWFBr6VDKMdVUCs@mail.gmail.com>
	<COL115-W6193714B75A26E58EA773AA83C0@phx.gbl>
	<3ba1d0462bc7df1c3eb5a6d4777ce08a.squirrel@sq.gransy.com>
Comments: In-reply-to tv@fuzzy.cz
	message dated "Sun, 21 Nov 2010 16:36:25 +0100"
Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2010 12:16:01 -0500
Message-ID: <22586.1290359761@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.91 tagged_above=-10 required=5 tests=BAYES_00=-1.9,
	T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Archive-Number: 201011/340
X-Sequence-Number: 41364

tv@fuzzy.cz writes:
>> Second, I modified the work_mem setting to 2GB (reloaded config) and I see
>> a response time of 38 seconds. Results below from EXPLAIN ANALYZE:

> How did you reload the config? Using 'kill -HUP pid'? That should work
> fine. Have you cheched 'work_mem' after the reload?

> Because the explain plans are exactly the same (structure, estimated
> costs). The really interesting bit is this and it did not change at all

>    Buckets: 1024 Batches: 64  Memory Usage: 650kB

If that didn't change, I'm prepared to bet that the OP didn't actually
manage to change the active value of work_mem.

			regards, tom lane