Tom Lane wrote:
Stefan Kaltenbrunner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
btw - the "hashjoin is bad" was more or less based on the observation
that nearly all of the cpu is burned in hash-related functions in the
profile (when profiling over a longer period of time those accumulate
even more % of the time than in the short profile I included in the
original report)

[ shrug... ]  Two out of the three functions you mentioned are not used
by hash join, and anyway the other plan probably has a comparable
execution density in sort-related functions; does that make it bad?

hmm sorry for that - I should have checked the source before I made that assumption :-(

It's possible that the large time for ExecScanHashBucket has something
to do with skewed usage of the hash buckets due to an unfortunate data
distribution, but that's theorizing far in advance of the data.

has preliminary data of the dbt3/scaling 10 run I did which seems to imply we have at least 4 queries in there that take an excessive amount of time (query 5 is the one I started the complaint with). However those results have to be taken with a graint of salt since there is an appearant bug in the dbt3 code which seems to rely on add_missing_from=on (as can be seen in some of the errorlogs of the database) and towards the end of the throughput run I did some of the explain analyzes for the report (those are the small 100% spikes in the graph due to the box using the second CPU to run them).
I will redo those tests later this week though ...


---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
      subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
      message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

Reply via email to