From: CG <cgg007@yahoo.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Nested loops are killing throughput
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 11:59:13 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <20060919185913.21542.qmail@web37908.mail.mud.yahoo.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <15195.1158689872@sss.pgh.pa.us>
>If packet_status is large, that seems like a perfectly reasonable plan
>to me. If not ... what data type is packet_uuid? Is its equality op
>marked mergeable or hashable?
It is of type uniqueidentifier ...
CREATE OPERATOR =(
PROCEDURE = uniqueidentifier_eq,
LEFTARG = uniqueidentifier,
RIGHTARG = uniqueidentifier,
COMMUTATOR = =,
RESTRICT = eqsel,
JOIN = eqjoinsel,
HASHES,
MERGES,
SORT1 = <,
SORT2 = <,
LTCMP = <,
GTCMP = >);
It looks like it is marked both mergable and hashable.
So what size (I have no idea what units to use to think about table size... kilobytes? pages? rows?) is "large" ... It seems like we recently stepped over that imaginary line between medium and large.
We could re-tune PostgreSQL... What settings would make sense to tweak? Sort Memory?
We could partition the tables... I understand the theory behind table partitioning and partial indexes, but I've never come across a howto or even a best practices list.
We could remove data from the table... I don't like this as much, but if that's the only way, that's the only way.
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-sql@postgresql.org
Cc: cgg007@yahoo.com, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us
Subject: Re: Nested loops are killing throughput
In-Reply-To: <20060919185913.21542.qmail@web37908.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
* 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