On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 4:21 PM Marc Millas wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 4:05 PM Ron wrote:
>
>> On 6/26/23 07:22, Marc Millas wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 5:47 AM Avin Kavish wrote:
>>
>>> Sounds like the problem you are having is, the server is running out of
>>> temporary resourc
On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 4:05 PM Ron wrote:
> On 6/26/23 07:22, Marc Millas wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 5:47 AM Avin Kavish wrote:
>
>> Sounds like the problem you are having is, the server is running out of
>> temporary resources for the operation that users are trying to do. So
>> ac
On 6/26/23 07:22, Marc Millas wrote:
On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 5:47 AM Avin Kavish wrote:
Sounds like the problem you are having is, the server is running out
of temporary resources for the operation that users are trying to do.
So according to Tom, on the postgres side, the operati
On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 5:47 AM Avin Kavish wrote:
> Sounds like the problem you are having is, the server is running out of
> temporary resources for the operation that users are trying to do. So
> according to Tom, on the postgres side, the operation cannot be optimized
> further.
>
> I think y
Sounds like the problem you are having is, the server is running out of
temporary resources for the operation that users are trying to do. So
according to Tom, on the postgres side, the operation cannot be optimized
further.
I think you have few choices here,
- See if increasing the resources of
On Sun, Jun 25, 2023 at 11:48 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> David Rowley writes:
> > The problem is that out of the 3 methods PostgreSQL uses to join
> > tables, only 1 of them supports join conditions with an OR clause.
> > Merge Join cannot do this because results can only be ordered one way
> > at a t
David Rowley writes:
> The problem is that out of the 3 methods PostgreSQL uses to join
> tables, only 1 of them supports join conditions with an OR clause.
> Merge Join cannot do this because results can only be ordered one way
> at a time. Hash Join technically could do this, but it would requi
On Sun, Jun 25, 2023 at 9:35 PM David Rowley wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Jun 2023 at 03:02, Marc Millas wrote:
> > When I ask this list, David Rowley suggest to rewrite the SQL, replacing
> the OR by a union.
> >
> > Fine, this do work, even if a bit complex as the original SQL was a set
> of intricate
On Mon, 26 Jun 2023 at 03:02, Marc Millas wrote:
> When I ask this list, David Rowley suggest to rewrite the SQL, replacing the
> OR by a union.
>
> Fine, this do work, even if a bit complex as the original SQL was a set of
> intricate joins.
>
>
> So, either this behaviour ( postgres unable to
On 6/25/23 10:01, Marc Millas wrote:
Hi,
I have had a perf (++) pb with a join plan cf the pb with join plan thread.
I did simplify the thing up to when its a simple join between a 15M lines
table and a 30k lines table.
if I put in the on part something like table1.a=table2.b, Postgres does
t
Hi,
I have had a perf (++) pb with a join plan cf the pb with join plan thread.
I did simplify the thing up to when its a simple join between a 15M lines
table and a 30k lines table.
if I put in the on part something like table1.a=table2.b, Postgres does the
job in around 1 seconde.
if in the on
11 matches
Mail list logo
