Re: [PERFORM] Partitions and work_mem?

2014-10-15 Thread Tom Lane
Igor Neyman writes: > From: Dave Johansen [mailto:davejohan...@gmail.com] > This conversation has probably become a bit off topic, but my understanding > is that what you're paying RedHat for is a stable platform for a long period > of time. That means creating/backporting of fixes for security

Re: [PERFORM] Partitions and work_mem?

2014-10-15 Thread Josh Berkus
On 10/15/2014 01:19 PM, Dave Johansen wrote: > Sorry I don't understand what you mean by that. My understanding is that > RedHat maintains fixes for security and other major issues for packages > that have been EOLed. Are you implying that that's not the case? Or > something else? RH probably back

Re: [PERFORM] Partitions and work_mem?

2014-10-15 Thread Igor Neyman
From: Dave Johansen [mailto:davejohan...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2014 4:49 PM To: Igor Neyman Cc: Josh Berkus; pgsql-performance Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Partitions and work_mem? On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 1:36 PM, Igor Neyman mailto:iney...@perceptron.com>> wrote: From: Dave Johan

Re: [PERFORM] Partitions and work_mem?

2014-10-15 Thread Dave Johansen
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 1:36 PM, Igor Neyman wrote: > > > > > *From:* Dave Johansen [mailto:davejohan...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Wednesday, October 15, 2014 4:20 PM > *To:* Igor Neyman > *Cc:* Josh Berkus; pgsql-performance > *Subject:* Re: [PERFORM] Partitions and work_mem? > > > > On Wed, Oct 15,

Re: [PERFORM] Partitions and work_mem?

2014-10-15 Thread Igor Neyman
From: Dave Johansen [mailto:davejohan...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2014 4:20 PM To: Igor Neyman Cc: Josh Berkus; pgsql-performance Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Partitions and work_mem? On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 1:08 PM, Igor Neyman mailto:iney...@perceptron.com>> wrote: From: pgsql-per

Re: [PERFORM] Partitions and work_mem?

2014-10-15 Thread Dave Johansen
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 1:08 PM, Igor Neyman wrote: > > > > > *From:* pgsql-performance-ow...@postgresql.org [mailto: > pgsql-performance-ow...@postgresql.org] *On Behalf Of *Dave Johansen > *Sent:* Wednesday, October 15, 2014 4:05 PM > *To:* Josh Berkus > *Cc:* pgsql-performance > *Subject:* Re:

Re: [PERFORM] Partitions and work_mem?

2014-10-15 Thread Igor Neyman
From: pgsql-performance-ow...@postgresql.org [mailto:pgsql-performance-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Dave Johansen Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2014 4:05 PM To: Josh Berkus Cc: pgsql-performance Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Partitions and work_mem? On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 10:10 AM, Josh Berkus

Re: [PERFORM] Partitions and work_mem?

2014-10-15 Thread Dave Johansen
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 10:10 AM, Josh Berkus wrote: > On 10/14/2014 10:08 AM, Dave Johansen wrote: > > I'm running Postgres 8.4 on RHEL 6 64-bit and I had a question about how > > work_mem and partitions interact. > > > > https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Tuning_Your_PostgreSQL_Server#work_mem >

Re: [PERFORM] Yet another abort-early plan disaster on 9.3

2014-10-15 Thread Tomas Vondra
On 15.10.2014 19:20, Josh Berkus wrote: > On 10/10/2014 04:16 AM, Greg Stark wrote: >> On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 8:56 PM, Josh Berkus wrote: >>> Yes, it's only intractable if you're wedded to the idea of a tiny, >>> fixed-size sample. If we're allowed to sample, say, 1% of the table, we >>> can get

Re: [PERFORM] Yet another abort-early plan disaster on 9.3

2014-10-15 Thread Josh Berkus
On 10/10/2014 04:16 AM, Greg Stark wrote: > On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 8:56 PM, Josh Berkus wrote: >> Yes, it's only intractable if you're wedded to the idea of a tiny, >> fixed-size sample. If we're allowed to sample, say, 1% of the table, we >> can get a MUCH more accurate n_distinct estimate using

Re: [PERFORM] Partitions and work_mem?

2014-10-15 Thread Josh Berkus
On 10/14/2014 10:08 AM, Dave Johansen wrote: > I'm running Postgres 8.4 on RHEL 6 64-bit and I had a question about how > work_mem and partitions interact. > > https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Tuning_Your_PostgreSQL_Server#work_mem > The above wiki states that "if a query involves doing merge sort