Re: [PERFORM] osdl-dbt3 run results - puzzled by the execution

2003-09-19 Thread Jenny Zhang
On Fri, 2003-09-19 at 06:12, Greg Stark wrote: > Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > I think this is a pipe dream. Variation in where the data gets laid > > down on your disk drive would alone create more than that kind of delta. > > I'm frankly amazed you could get repeatability within 2-

Re: [PERFORM] osdl-dbt3 run results - puzzled by the execution

2003-09-19 Thread Jenny Zhang
On Thu, 2003-09-18 at 20:20, Tom Lane wrote: > Jenny Zhang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > ... It seems to me that small > > effective_cache_size favors the choice of nested loop joins (NLJ) > > while the big effective_cache_size is in favor of merge joins (MJ). > > No, I wouldn't think that,

Re: [PERFORM] osdl-dbt3 run results - puzzled by the execution

2003-09-19 Thread Jenny Zhang
I posted more results as you requested: On Fri, 2003-09-19 at 08:08, Manfred Koizar wrote: > On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 15:36:50 -0700, Jenny Zhang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > >We thought the large effective_cache_size should lead us to better > >plans. But we found the opposite. > > The common str

Re: [PERFORM] osdl-dbt3 run results - puzzled by the execution plans

2003-09-19 Thread Manfred Koizar
On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 15:36:50 -0700, Jenny Zhang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >We thought the large effective_cache_size should lead us to better >plans. But we found the opposite. The common structure of your query plans is: Sort Sort Key: sum((partsupp.ps_supplycost * partsupp.ps_availqty))

Re: [PERFORM] osdl-dbt3 run results - puzzled by the execution plans

2003-09-19 Thread Greg Stark
Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I think this is a pipe dream. Variation in where the data gets laid > down on your disk drive would alone create more than that kind of delta. > I'm frankly amazed you could get repeatability within 2-3%. I think the reason he gets good repeatability is be

Re: [PERFORM] osdl-dbt3 run results - puzzled by the execution

2003-09-19 Thread Matt Clark
> I put the EXPLAIN ANALYZE output at: > http://developer.osdl.org/~jenny/large_explain_analyze > http://developer.osdl.org/~jenny/small_explain_analyze > The actual execution time is 37 seconds(large) vs 5 seconds (small). > There's an obvious row count misestimation in the 'large' plan: -> So

Re: [PERFORM] rewrite in to exists?

2003-09-19 Thread Manfred Koizar
On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 12:27:23 -0700 (GMT-07:00), LN Cisneros <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >But, the EXISTS version doesn't Laurette, looking at that SELECT statement again I can't see what's wrong with it. One of us is missing something ;-) > really give me what I want... Can you elaborate? SELEC