Tomas Vondra wrote:
> Yes, that's clearly the culprit here. In both cases we estimate here are
> only ~4000 tuples in the hash, and 9.3 sizes the hash table to have at
> most ~10 tuples per bucket (in a linked list).
>
> However we actually get ~3M rows, so there will be ~3000 tuples per
> bucket,
On 02/01/2016 10:38 AM, Albe Laurenz wrote:
Tomas Vondra wrote:
...
I didn't post the whole plan since it is awfully long, I'll include hyperlinks
for the whole plan.
work_mem = '100MB' (http://explain.depesz.com/s/7b6a):
-> Hash Join (cost=46738.74..285400.61 rows=292 width=8) (actual
tim
Mathieu De Zutter writes:
> I have a recursive part in my database logic that I want to isolate and
> reuse as a view. I had found a blog that explained how move a function
> parameter into a view. The SQL is in attachment.
> When I write a query based on that view with a fixed value (or values) f
Tomas Vondra wrote:
> On 01/29/2016 04:17 PM, Albe Laurenz wrote:
>> I have a query that runs *slower* if I increase work_mem.
>>
>> The execution plans are identical in both cases, except that a temp file
>> is used when work_mem is smaller.
>> What could be an explanation for this?
>> Is this kn
