Re: Performance With Joins on Large Tables - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Joshua Marsh
Subject Re: Performance With Joins on Large Tables
Date
Msg-id 38242de90609131418j43d0dc88q3cb8a52dcceec287@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Performance With Joins on Large Tables  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Performance With Joins on Large Tables
List pgsql-performance
> Are the tables perhaps nearly in order by the dsiacctno fields?
> If that were the case, and the planner were missing it for some reason,
> these results would be plausible.
>
> BTW, what are you using for work_mem, and how does that compare to your
> available RAM?
>
>                        regards, tom lane
>

My assumption would be they are in exact order.  The text file I used
in the COPY statement had them in order, so if COPY preserves that in
the database, then it is in order.

The system has 8GB of ram and work_mem is set to 256MB.

I'll see if I can't make time to run the sort-seqscan method so we can
have an exact time to work with.

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Scott Marlowe
Date:
Subject: Re: sql-bench
Next
From: Ivan Voras
Date:
Subject: Re: Poor performance on seq scan