Humair Mohammed <huma...@hotmail.com> writes:
> Yes strange indeed, I did rerun ANALYZE and VACCUM. Took 70 seconds to rerun
> the query. Results from EXPLAIN ANALYZE below:
> "Hash Join (cost=16212.30..52586.43 rows=92869 width=17) (actual
> time=43200.223..49502.874 rows=3163 loops=1)"" Hash Cond: (((pb.id)::text =
> (pg.id)::text) AND ((pb.question)::text = (pg.question)::text))"" Join
> Filter: ((COALESCE(pb.response, 'MISSING'::character varying))::text <>
> (COALESCE(pg.response, 'MISSING'::character varying))::text)"" -> Seq Scan
> on pivotbad pb (cost=0.00..2804.96 rows=93496 width=134) (actual
> time=0.009..48.200 rows=93496 loops=1)"" -> Hash (cost=7537.12..7537.12
> rows=251212 width=134) (actual time=42919.453..42919.453 rows=251212
> loops=1)"" Buckets: 1024 Batches: 64 Memory Usage: 650kB"" ->
> Seq Scan on pivotgood pg (cost=0.00..7537.12 rows=251212 width=134) (actual
> time=0.119..173.019 rows=251212 loops=1)""Total runtime: 49503.450 ms"
I have no idea how much memory SQL Server thinks it can use, but
Postgres is limiting itself to work_mem which you've apparently left at
the default 1MB. You might get a fairer comparison by bumping that up
some --- try 32MB or so. You want it high enough so that the Hash
output doesn't say there are multiple batches.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
