Thanks Tom!
explain output:Merge Join (cost=60454519.54..70701005.93 rows=682951183 width=22) Merge Cond: (("outer".y =
"inner".y)AND ("outer".x = "inner".x)) -> Sort (cost=41812068.08..42304601.78 rows=197013479 width=20) Sort
Key:Master.y, Master.x -> Seq Scan on Master (cost=0.00..3129037.79 rows=197013479
width=20) -> Sort (cost=18642451.46..18879400.92 rows=94779784 width=10) Sort Key: Import.y, Import.x
-> Seq Scan on Import (cost=0.00..1460121.84 rows=94779784
width=10)
Don't really understand all those numbers but they look big, to me.
work_mem is set to 262144. should it be bigger? i have 1.5GB ram on
the system. also i set /proc/sys/kernel/shmmax to 256000000. too big,
too small?
There are no foreign key constraints on either table.
I don't know what hashjoin or sort-and-mergejoin are but I will look
into them.
Thanks!
Ken
Tom Lane wrote:
> Ken <postgres@kwasnicki.com> writes:
>
>> I have postgres 8.1 on a linux box: 2.6Ghz P4, 1.5GB ram, 320GB hard
>> drive. I'm performing an update between two large tables and so far
>> it's been running for 24+ hours.
>> UPDATE Master SET val2=Import.val WHERE Master.x=Import.x AND
>> Master.y=Import.y;
>>
>
> What does EXPLAIN say about that? (Don't try EXPLAIN ANALYZE,
> but a plain EXPLAIN should be quick enough.)
>
>
>> Both tables have indexes on the x and y columns. Will that help?
>>
>
> A two-column index would have helped a lot more, probably, although
> with so many rows to process I'm not sure that indexes are useful
> anyway. For really bulk updates a hashjoin or sort-and-mergejoin
> plan is probably the best bet.
>
> BTW, both of those would require plenty of work_mem to run fast
> ... what have you got work_mem set to?
>
> And possibly even more to the point, do you have any foreign key
> constraints leading into or out of the Master table?
>
> regards, tom lane
>
>
