From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
To: Jasmin Dizdarevic <jasmin.dizdarevic@gmail.com>
Cc: Craig Ringer <craig@postnewspapers.com.au>
Cc: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Performance of NOT IN and <> with PG 9.0.4
Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 15:14:23 -0400
Message-ID: <BANLkTim_EvVzTzzbbOhmDQGPMUoc0fNLFA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTinp_jkY5mpruP8JkTekpDKMkjovyQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <BANLkTimo9PG9r+pP-wxT=Amk79G_UmtCwg@mail.gmail.com>
<4DD10533.7050904@postnewspapers.com.au>
<BANLkTi=GmO5NaTGb80e7LpX8mRcvPyKucg@mail.gmail.com>
<BANLkTinp_jkY5mpruP8JkTekpDKMkjovyQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 7:45 AM, Jasmin Dizdarevic
<jasmin.dizdarevic@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
> found the problem.
> 238 sec. with set enable_material = 'on'
> 4(!) sec. with set enable_material = 'off'
>
> @Robert Haas: I thought it would be interesting to you, because
> you've committed a patch regarding materialization for 9.0. If you like to
> investigate this further, I can provide you more details.
Well, it makes me glad I insisted we add enable_material.
But I can't really tell from this output what is happening. Can we
see the EXPLAIN ANALYZE output on 9.0, with and without
enable_material?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
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: robertmhaas@gmail.com, jasmin.dizdarevic@gmail.com, craig@postnewspapers.com.au
Subject: Re: Performance of NOT IN and <> with PG 9.0.4
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTim_EvVzTzzbbOhmDQGPMUoc0fNLFA@mail.gmail.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