X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@postgresql.org Received: from localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BEDB9FA18C for ; Wed, 13 Sep 2006 18:18:55 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 00607-02 for ; Wed, 13 Sep 2006 18:18:51 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from nf-out-0910.google.com (nf-out-0910.google.com [64.233.182.191]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A75DF9FA17D for ; Wed, 13 Sep 2006 18:18:51 -0300 (ADT) Received: by nf-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id p77so1916340nfc for ; Wed, 13 Sep 2006 14:18:50 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=P4IVfWgu3vdieY+bes07hqc27ideXOaXj7Aw1zkRfJJQfDUXpVVcL3cXPn1meFVQ8a72U1AgZ3oa/delO+2FNvQzdQ75Kt1GE0OaDtUque9Dr4lw/lmLLPK7JCUBIzRT4HyS5fEfSkIf59HaP+pdQkgBConbjaHYhvB7pdPn9Hc= Received: by 10.49.55.13 with SMTP id h13mr11369015nfk; Wed, 13 Sep 2006 14:18:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.49.42.19 with HTTP; Wed, 13 Sep 2006 14:18:49 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <38242de90609131418j43d0dc88q3cb8a52dcceec287@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 15:18:49 -0600 From: "Joshua Marsh" To: "Tom Lane" Subject: Re: Performance With Joins on Large Tables Cc: "Terje Elde" , "Jeff Davis" , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org, jim@nasby.net In-Reply-To: <16645.1158181784@sss.pgh.pa.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <38242de90609121517y62517040v8622b9ae93cba23d@mail.gmail.com> <20060913064152.GC23173@nasby.net> <38242de90609130749u976295fwb10904ff4797b920@mail.gmail.com> <1158163655.29889.57.camel@dogma.v10.wvs> <38242de90609130919k33208204ka1006ff0ca25f75b@mail.gmail.com> <1158167054.29889.72.camel@dogma.v10.wvs> <45085F3A.1040108@elde.net> <38242de90609131327o68d2866fh92c12ddcf364aba7@mail.gmail.com> <16645.1158181784@sss.pgh.pa.us> X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.177 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=AWL, DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE, SPF_PASS X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200609/137 X-Sequence-Number: 20823 > Are the tables perhaps nearly in order by the dsiacctno fields? > If that were the case, and the planner were missing it for some reason, > these results would be plausible. > > BTW, what are you using for work_mem, and how does that compare to your > available RAM? > > regards, tom lane > My assumption would be they are in exact order. The text file I used in the COPY statement had them in order, so if COPY preserves that in the database, then it is in order. The system has 8GB of ram and work_mem is set to 256MB. I'll see if I can't make time to run the sort-seqscan method so we can have an exact time to work with.