Thanks a lot. On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 11:28 PM, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "David Rowley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I assume workmem, effective_cache_size and random_page_cost are all the > same > > in the 2 postgresql.conf? > > Indeed, work_mem is probably the problem. The critical difference > between the two plans seems to be that the first one is using a > "hashed subplan" and the second one isn't. Assuming the same datatypes in > both databases, the only reason not to use a hashed subplan is if the > hashtable is estimated not to fit in work_mem. > I changed work_mem in test machine to be implemented in production server later. Completely forgot that when faced with this issue. Sorry for the trouble. I learnt about "hashed subplan" requiring sufficient work_mem, however. Thanks and regards, Ma Sivakumar மா சிவகுமார் எல்லோரும் எல்லாமும் பெற வேண்டும் http://masivakumar.blogspot.com
