On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 5:10 PM, Jasmin Dizdarevic
wrote:
> That's strange...
> If I comment out these rows
> --sum(coalesce(e.num_wert,0)),
> --sum(coalesce(d.num_wert,0))
> in the given statement, it works fine with enable_material = 'on'.
> I didn't change any join.
That's not that strange. T
As I've understood the docs those 2 limits should not take effect, because
the performance is going down when adding two aggregated columns, but only
when enable_material is on.
2011/5/25 Tom Lane
> Robert Haas writes:
> > On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 3:32 PM, Jasmin Dizdarevic
> > wrote:
> >> enab
Robert Haas writes:
> On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 3:32 PM, Jasmin Dizdarevic
> wrote:
>> enable_material = off
> Is there any chance you can reproduce this with a simpler test case
> that doesn't involve quite so many joins?
I didn't stop to count, but are there enough that join_collapse_limit
or f
On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 3:32 PM, Jasmin Dizdarevic
wrote:
> enable_material = off
Is there any chance you can reproduce this with a simpler test case
that doesn't involve quite so many joins?
It looks to me like shutting off enable_material is saving you mostly
by accident here. There's only on
On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 7:45 AM, Jasmin Dizdarevic
wrote:
> Hi,
> found the problem.
> 238 sec. with set enable_material = 'on'
> 4(!) sec. with set enable_material = 'off'
>
> @Robert Haas: I thought it would be interesting to you, because
> you've committed a patch regarding materialization for
That's strange...
If I comment out these rows
--sum(coalesce(e.num_wert,0)),
--sum(coalesce(d.num_wert,0))
in the given statement, it works fine with enable_material = 'on'.
I didn't change any join.
other settings are unchanged.
HashAggregate (cost=589873.86..593205.21 rows=12114 width=47) (act
Hi,
found the problem.
238 sec. with set enable_material = 'on'
4(!) sec. with set enable_material = 'off'
@Robert Haas: I thought it would be interesting to you, because
you've committed a patch regarding materialization for 9.0. If you like to
investigate this further, I can provide you more
Hi,
now I have an example and a query plan for 8.4 and 9.0.4. See the
differences! Performance with 9 is horrible.
I've eliminated the NOT-IN-Statements hoping it would be better, but this
had no effect.
Statement:
select kd.datum, kd.filiale, kd.kundart as segment, mis.shore(swiftlcd),
sum(coal
On 05/16/2011 06:05 PM, Jasmin Dizdarevic wrote:
Hi,
is there a reason why Not IN-performance is so poor in 9.0.4 compared to
8.4?
Example queries?
EXPLAIN ANALYZE output?
http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/SlowQueryQuestions
--
Craig Ringer
--
Sent via pgsql-sql mailing list (pgsql-sql@postg
Hi,
is there a reason why Not IN-performance is so poor in 9.0.4 compared to
8.4?
Ty
Jasmin
10 matches
Mail list logo