From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Jim Nasby <jnasby@enova.com>
Cc: Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Problems with hash join over nested loop
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 12:45:14 -0400
Message-ID: <3692.1383065114@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <526FE086.4020903@enova.com>
References: <526EDDF7.3090102@enova.com>
<13775.1383002035@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<CAHyXU0ydScKt=-5G4yBpHWAh9eO6eV60P6uVCnui+YS9EMY5vw@mail.gmail.com>
<526FE086.4020903@enova.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@postgresql.org?body=unsub%20pgsql-performance>
Jim Nasby <jnasby@enova.com> writes:
> I'm also wondering if it's time to raise those limits.
Yeah, possibly. The current default values were set on machines much
smaller/slower than most current hardware.
I think also that the collapse limits were invented mainly to keep people
out of GEQO's clutches, but we've made some significant fixes in GEQO
since then. Maybe the real answer is to make the default collapse limits
much higher, and lower geqo_threshold to whatever we think the threshold
of pain is for applying the regular planner.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
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, jnasby@enova.com, mmoncure@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Problems with hash join over nested loop
In-Reply-To: <3692.1383065114@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