At the time this was the only process running on the box so I set sort_mem= 228000;
It's a 12G box.

Tom Lane wrote:

Patrick Hatcher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hash Join  (cost=1246688.42..4127248.31 rows=12702676 width=200)
  Hash Cond: ("outer".cus_num = "inner".cus_nbr)
-> Seq Scan on bcp_ddw_ck_cus b (cost=0.00..195690.76 rows=12702676 width=16)
  ->  Hash  (cost=874854.34..874854.34 rows=12880834 width=192)
-> Seq Scan on cdm_ddw_customer (cost=0.00..874854.34 rows=12880834 width=192)

Yipes, that's a bit of a large hash table, if the planner's estimates
are on-target.  What do you have work_mem (sort_mem if pre 8.0) set to,
and how does that compare to actual available RAM?  I'm thinking you
might have set work_mem too large and the thing is now swap-thrashing.

                        regards, tom lane

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

Reply via email to