From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Peter Hussey <peter@labkey.com>
Cc: pgsql-performance <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Questions on query planner, join types, and work_mem
Date: Mon, 02 Aug 2010 22:55:45 -0400
Message-ID: <7124.1280804145@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTik3oY1=F_uC843c84LxBLNdHxZaWdfjxrAtyBeu@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTikMwVZKDYLitnsK31R=VNOuTH8NtmDHDGkBR7k8@mail.gmail.com>
<18551.1280275502@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<AANLkTimXMR0jMdw+66E4Xx=SqNV37Ne9WfkFjPFZVjbV@mail.gmail.com>
<25534.1280498632@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<AANLkTik3oY1=F_uC843c84LxBLNdHxZaWdfjxrAtyBeu@mail.gmail.com>
Peter Hussey <peter@labkey.com> writes:
> My questions are still
> 1) Does the planner have any component of cost calculations based on the
> size of work_mem,
Sure.
> and if so why do those calculations seem to have so
> little effect here?
Since you haven't provided sufficient information to let someone else
reproduce what you're seeing, it's pretty hard to say. It might have
something to do with the particularly wide join key values you're using,
but that's mere speculation based on the one tidbit you provided. There
might be some other effect altogether that's making it do the wrong thing.
> 2) Why is the setting of work_mem something left to the admin and/or
> developer?
Because we're not smart enough to find a way to avoid that.
regards, tom lane
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, peter@labkey.com
Subject: Re: Questions on query planner, join types, and work_mem
In-Reply-To: <7124.1280804145@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