Thanks for your reply, Marti, as I answered to Tom couple of days ago
adjusting of 'effective_cache_size' to 80% of RAM and 'random_page_cost'
from 2 to 1 helped me.
On 8 October 2014 00:26, Marti Raudsepp wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 6:38 PM, Andrey Lizenko
> wr
le" in the first case?
Is it possible to force optimizer choose the second plan without doing
"set enable_hashjoin = off;" ?
Increasing of 'effective_cache_size' leads to similar thing with
mergejoin,
other options (work_mem, shared_buffers. etc) do not change anything.
Thanks in advance.
--
Regards, Andrey Lizenko
2014 23:18, Victor Yegorov wrote:
> 2014-10-05 21:57 GMT+03:00 Andrey Lizenko :
>
>> Increasing of 'effective_cache_size' leads to similar thing with
>> mergejoin,
>> other options (work_mem, shared_buffers. etc) do not change anything.
>>
>
> I think i
5 October 2014 23:47, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrey Lizenko writes:
> > What is the reason of "Seq Scan on activities_example" in the first case?
> > Is it possible to force optimizer choose the second plan without doing
> > "set enable_hashjoin = off;" ?
&
le" in the first case?
Is it possible to force optimizer choose the second plan without doing
"set enable_hashjoin = off;" ?
Increasing of 'effective_cache_size' leads to similar thing with
mergejoin,
other options (work_mem, shared_buffers. etc) do not change anything.
Thanks in advance.
--
Regards, Andrey Lizenko
