On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 12:31 PM, Michael Paquier
<michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 12:28 AM, Alvaro Herrera
> <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
>>
>>> > I can't imagine that the server is avoiding hash aggregation on a 1MB
>>> > work_mem limit for data that's a few dozen of bytes. Is it really doing
>>> > that?
>>>
>>> Yup:
>>
>> Aha. Thanks for testing.
>>
>>> Now that you mention it, this does seem a bit odd, although I remember
>>> that there's a pretty substantial fudge factor in there when we have
>>> no statistics (which we don't in this example). If I ANALYZE ctv_data
>>> then it sticks to the hashagg plan all the way down to 64kB work_mem.
>>
>> Hmm, so we could solve the complaint by adding an ANALYZE. I'm open to
>> that; other opinions?
>
> We could just enforce work_mem to 64kB and then reset it.
Or just set up work_mem to a wanted value for the duration of the run
of psql_crosstab. Attached is my proposal.
--
Michael
