wickro <robwickert@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > So this is a planning mistake? Should a hash be allowed to grow larger > than work_mem before it starts to use the disk? HashAggregate doesn't have any ability to spill to disk. The planner will not select a HashAggregate if it thinks the required hash table would be larger than work_mem. What you've evidently got here is a misestimate of the required hash table size, which most likely is stemming from a bad estimate of the number of groups. How does that estimate (12617088 here) compare to reality? Have you tried increasing the statistics target for partner_id and keyword (or the whole table)? regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
