Tom Lane wrote:
"Craig A. James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
It looks to me like the problem is the use of nested loops when a hash
join should be used, but I'm no expert at query planning.
Given the sizes of the tables involved, you'd likely have to boost up
work_mem before the planner would consider a hash join. What nondefault
configuration settings do you have, anyway?
shared_buffers = 20000
work_mem = 32768
effective_cache_size = 300000
This is on a 4GB machine. Is there a guideline for work_mem that's related to table
size? Something like, "allow 2 MB per million rows"?
I'm also curious why the big difference between my "Query #1" and "Query #2".
Even though it does a nested loop, #2's outer loop only returns one result from a very tiny table,
so shouldn't it be virtually indistinguishable from #1?
Thanks,
Craig
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
