Received: from maia.hub.org (unknown [200.46.204.183]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0045633385 for ; Wed, 13 Jan 2010 12:24:23 -0400 (AST) Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by maia.hub.org (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 88621-10 for ; Wed, 13 Jan 2010 16:24:13 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-fx0-f227.google.com (mail-fx0-f227.google.com [209.85.220.227]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2D6C6328C8 for ; Wed, 13 Jan 2010 12:24:12 -0400 (AST) Received: by fxm27 with SMTP id 27so737107fxm.3 for ; Wed, 13 Jan 2010 08:24:11 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=eHjLDwNGY2eP+txF/O/vIrqD9RDWcnTL5rlpSeWBBLw=; b=gpL4sONfsbbeiqgzCURLnxqew8i/XxgQWDAaLcllpsFPDNgctT2yG5FMey/XAKsrZ2 cw1/PoaCDBowCoSpXNJvCByl+YvqC9ICFBsqactw13WqDTMDuPpVm7XB1nUb6Vo790KU 8rlOOqW6abASH2sW63vHImG1DqFQ9MDPsLkqw= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=lgNQxFnpSqTOui7y+AV0YhqwAx6cQ2iZlV4IDjdTgldJ5udqn+fi3q4/17cKv5Fgny wnj11agGhgxijxoKr8AqEDA4tmtiRZPod4Iecob57E1g587CR9mo8JQdIAtJKnaJSk8g teW1++2HJx3g3mJnu/jSvG0C4nVIiJsD2gwVU= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.239.193.5 with SMTP id g5mr144681hbi.3.1263399851139; Wed, 13 Jan 2010 08:24:11 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <3073cc9b1001130814t79b313dk4377996dee0ac521@mail.gmail.com> References: <3073cc9b0908191745o3dc63d95q6b9308ef5bd199f2@mail.gmail.com> <603c8f071001111107v75276375g4d626dfc0efd8dc4@mail.gmail.com> <3073cc9b1001111114j7ddacd56p8966f9d61997a8b@mail.gmail.com> <3073cc9b1001111116x53427c9bm1e448128a3b4f6c6@mail.gmail.com> <18803.1263241120@sss.pgh.pa.us> <3073cc9b1001122231m1a15d187lae2a8096a813361b@mail.gmail.com> <603c8f071001130723v634cb3c3u1604ea69efb04e91@mail.gmail.com> <10990.1263397358@sss.pgh.pa.us> <603c8f071001130811g22387928g72262638532370e5@mail.gmail.com> <3073cc9b1001130814t79b313dk4377996dee0ac521@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 11:24:09 -0500 Message-ID: <603c8f071001130824u3e0be910lfea14c3e475c8256@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: [PERFORMANCE] work_mem vs temp files issue From: Robert Haas To: Jaime Casanova Cc: Tom Lane , decibel , psql performance list Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.589 tagged_above=-10 required=5 tests=BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_DATE_PAST_20XX=3.188 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 201001/255 X-Sequence-Number: 37135 On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 11:14 AM, Jaime Casanova wrote: > On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 11:11 AM, Robert Haas wrote: >> Well, what about when we're just doing EXPLAIN, not EXPLAIN ANALYZE? >> It'll add another line to the output for the expected number of >> batches. > > and when we are in EXPLAIN ANALYZE the real number as well? Yeah. My question is whether it's acceptable to add an extra line to the EXPLAIN output for every hash join, even w/o ANALYZE. ...Robert