On Sat, Jan 31, 2026 at 2:47 PM yudhi s <[email protected]> wrote:
> Thank you. > >> >> 1) Without even looking at the plan I'm going to say 2-VCPU and 16GB RAM >> and is insufficient resources for what you want to do. >> >> > Can you please explain a bit in detail, how much minimum VCPU and RAM will > be enough resources to suffice this requirement? and you normally do that > calculation? > > >> 2) You will need to provide the schema definitions for the tables >> involved. >> >> Do you mean table DDL or just the index definitions on the tables should > help? > > Also i was trying to understand , by just looking into the "explain > analyze" output, is there any way we can tie the specific step in the plan > , which is the major contributor of the cpu resources? Such that we can > then try to fix that part rather than looking throughout the query as its > big query? > It looks like 71% (748ms of a total 1056ms) of elapsed time is taken by the c_1.tran_date external sort on line 150. That, obviously, is what you should work on. 1. You say you increased work_mem. From what, to what? 2. But that it did not reduce execution time. Please post the EXPLAIN from after increasing work_mem. 3. Did you remember to run SELECT pg_reload_conf(); after increasing work_mem? 4. Is there an index on APP_schema.txn_tbl.tran_date? And if any suggestion to improve the TOP-N queries where the base table may > have many rows in it. > -- Death to <Redacted>, and butter sauce. Don't boil me, I'm still alive. <Redacted> lobster!
