On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 1:56 AM Peter J. Holzer <hjp-pgsql@xxxxxx> wrote:
On 2023-05-10 22:52:47 +0200, Marc Millas wrote:
> On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 7:24 PM Peter J. Holzer <hjp-pgsql@xxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 2023-05-10 16:35:04 +0200, Marc Millas wrote:
> > Unique (cost=72377463163.02..201012533981.80 rows=1021522829864 width=
> 97)
> > -> Gather Merge (cost=72377463163.02..195904919832.48 rows=
> 1021522829864 width=97)
> ...
> > -> Parallel Hash Left Join (cost=
> 604502.76..1276224253.51 rows=204304565973 width=97)
> > Hash Cond: ((t1.col_ano)::text = (t2.col_ano)::text)
> ...
> >
> > //so.. the planner guess that those 2 join will generate 1000 billions
> rows...
>
> Are some of the col_ano values very frequent? If say the value 42 occurs
> 1 million times in both table_a and table_b, the join will create 1
> trillion rows for that value alone. That doesn't explain the crash or the
> disk usage, but it would explain the crazy cost (and would probably be a
> hint that this query is unlikely to finish in any reasonable time).
>
>
> good guess, even if a bit surprising: there is one (and only one) "value" which
> fit your supposition: NULL
But NULL doesn't equal NULL, so that would result in only one row in the
left join. So that's not it.
if so... how ???
hp
--
_ | Peter J. Holzer | Story must make more sense than reality.
|_|_) | |
| | | hjp@xxxxxx | -- Charles Stross, "Creative writing
__/ | http://www.hjp.at/ | challenge!"
