Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56])
 by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from
 <pgsql-performance-owner+M50689=pgsql-performance-ar@postgresql.org>)
 id 1VbCX0-0006H9-Fq
 for pgsql-performance@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 16:52:38 +0000
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=postgresql.org)
 by malur.postgresql.org with smtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from
 <pgsql-performance-owner+M50689=pgsql-performance-ar@postgresql.org>)
 id 1VbCWz-0000EX-QT
 for pgsql-performance@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 16:52:37 +0000
Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29])
 by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80)
 (envelope-from <jnasby@enova.com>) id 1VbCWy-0000EQ-LJ
 for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 16:52:36 +0000
Received: from exprod5og110.obsmtp.com ([64.18.0.20])
 by magus.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80)
 (envelope-from <jnasby@enova.com>) id 1VbCWn-0005vq-MU
 for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 16:52:36 +0000
Received: from mail-ie0-f172.google.com ([209.85.223.172]) (using TLSv1) by
 exprod5ob110.postini.com ([64.18.4.12]) with SMTP
 ID DSNKUm/nx0kTgk/B/5/a3IwxHcPfahNNlMHD@postini.com;
 Tue, 29 Oct 2013 09:52:25 PDT
Received: by mail-ie0-f172.google.com with SMTP id tp5so235573ieb.3
 for <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 09:52:23 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=enova.com; s=google;
 h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject
 :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
 bh=zVwIXovYVLeHPvHS8DnXoVMUEs6+oeDJC8Z3TwBtbng=;
 b=TjBhAt+G9jNZDOBmmlj76gmLJ/2660mmXVtSJ64UU5X4BFtB9iC7fzD7CNdOj6XNhw
 tYrhG1nbtJnnTNaAxoMNzli+T6N4CmPovGVuAGChf5WnpIb5tesouZKS31D/QOw6nbFn
 FAjPG+HrFBoLCG0vQzLxsFLdsrGQekyoMIV4Q=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
 d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
 h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to
 :cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type
 :content-transfer-encoding;
 bh=zVwIXovYVLeHPvHS8DnXoVMUEs6+oeDJC8Z3TwBtbng=;
 b=ba+40ZHGBO2nGrenZrSjVB9rtUZ/qBpL85v03euNQF9fHPkEhnHYqMoQ/E+QGuD5fI
 S+Zga54X7ZzOzeoihf8AfjzHuS3S0SWxsZx7mKfFOsDpkbVsai1BB4BaGySbXp8w2Vrh
 tzEarVlK4sydJvkMfAx5Ph9boiUmo8nxGxNhypWzj4Q4rAYPUtVLrH4ofmBlwS2e6Ztn
 2PyDEPUxYbRYcmDBWaiktOjpyfaV5hilkX/hI2pQoWSOEQq7PS6mq1htb6Wp5AFdnGVn
 0szNRchNSPfEspA9pmiUtEwHO/g3CxxL1RN/FGti1f++h1AFyc4MIIMy3Cm7mHiIGLIw
 Usgw==
X-Gm-Message-State: 
 ALoCoQmlULOPT+Q2fFbPWKJR9xoeOD/aIPdB4s3mUkKhjAf4QoDuqMV995v3gJTaIA3BINSESdxSdlxJnuIs6TQu1trN/0phQb1/IEd1nyFpN5jJQ5/IYic9zn41syOD4W3ttA5dK0k6GsYY/mXMKpEG5KripSvTslTNqFUjFOvefmLRcsyGJpdGZdPeqRiJSLCGYC46ORGt
X-Received: by 10.42.70.5 with SMTP id d5mr298805icj.39.1383065543662;
 Tue, 29 Oct 2013 09:52:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.42.70.5 with SMTP id d5mr298800icj.39.1383065543572;
 Tue, 29 Oct 2013 09:52:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from decina.local (rrcs-67-79-71-90.sw.biz.rr.com. [67.79.71.90])
 by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id cl4sm3273651igc.1.2013.10.29.09.52.22
 for <multiple recipients>
 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128);
 Tue, 29 Oct 2013 09:52:23 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <526FE7D0.9000605@enova.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 11:52:32 -0500
From: Jim Nasby <jnasby@enova.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8;
 rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
CC: Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com>,
 "pgsql-performance@postgresql.org" <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Problems with hash join over nested loop
References: <526EDDF7.3090102@enova.com> <13775.1383002035@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CAHyXU0ydScKt=-5G4yBpHWAh9eO6eV60P6uVCnui+YS9EMY5vw@mail.gmail.com>
 <526FE086.4020903@enova.com> <3692.1383065114@sss.pgh.pa.us>
In-Reply-To: <3692.1383065114@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Pg-Spam-Score: -4.3 (----)
List-Archive: <http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-performance>
List-Help: <mailto:majordomo@postgresql.org?body=help>
List-ID: <pgsql-performance.postgresql.org>
List-Owner: <mailto:pgsql-performance-owner@postgresql.org>
List-Post: <mailto:pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:majordomo@postgresql.org?body=sub%20pgsql-performance>
List-Unsubscribe: 
 <mailto:majordomo@postgresql.org?body=unsub%20pgsql-performance>
X-Mailing-List: pgsql-performance
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-performance-owner@postgresql.org

On 10/29/13 11:45 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> 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.

In my test case geqo does seem to do a good job. I'll see if I can get some data on how number of relations affects planning time... I don't get much of a warm fuzzy about lowering geqo...
-- 
Jim Nasby, Lead Data Architect   (512) 569-9461


-- 
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance