X-Original-To: pgsql-sql-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org
Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.2])
	by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53CD8D1B16A
	for <pgsql-sql-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org>;
	Mon, 24 May 2004 10:37:59 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71])
	by localhost (neptune.hub.org [200.46.204.2]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 21018-10
	for <pgsql-sql-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org>;
	Mon, 24 May 2004 10:37:42 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130])
	by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC768D1B215
	for <pgsql-sql@postgresql.org>; Mon, 24 May 2004 10:37:35 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i4ODbc3R010741;
	Mon, 24 May 2004 09:37:38 -0400 (EDT)
To: Dan Field <dof@llgc.org.uk>
Cc: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Memory usage on subselect 
In-reply-to: <D11F1F08-AD5F-11D8-9250-000A958E367A@llgc.org.uk> 
References: <20040522175419.GB54296@dyatel.antar.bryansk.ru>
	<24527.1085329698@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<20040523183249.GC54296@dyatel.antar.bryansk.ru>
	<D11F1F08-AD5F-11D8-9250-000A958E367A@llgc.org.uk>
Comments: In-reply-to Dan Field <dof@llgc.org.uk>
	message dated "Mon, 24 May 2004 09:53:24 +0100"
Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 09:37:37 -0400
Message-ID: <10740.1085405857@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at postgresql.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 tagged_above=0.0 required=5.0 tests=
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Archive-Number: 200405/204
X-Sequence-Number: 17918

Dan Field <dof@llgc.org.uk> writes:
> I have a similar problem with just one of my queries (although it isn't 
> a sub select):

You really ought to vacuum and/or analyze occasionally.  The EXPLAIN
results show that the planner hasn't got any non-default statistics
for any of these tables.

			regards, tom lane