Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > When you say, "don't fit in cache", exactly what > cache are you talking about? It seems to me that the statistics > should be far smaller than the underlying tables, so if even your > statistics don't fit in shared buffers (let alone main memory), it > doesn't really matter how long your query takes to plan because it > will probably take literally forever to execute. How many tables > would you have to be joining to get a GB of statistics, even with > dst = 1000? A few hundred? Since he can't share the schema, and hasn't even given much of a hint, I don't know whether one (or more) of the columns is a bytea filled with 100 MB values; and I don't remember any description of the hardware environment either. Since the behavior seems so out-of-the-ordinary, I was casting about for possible extraordinary characteristics of his environment which might cause it. I'm probably way off base.... -Kevin
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
