From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Jie Li <jay23jack(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: small table left outer join big table |
Date: | 2010-12-29 12:39:43 |
Message-ID: | 1293626360-sup-1760@alvh.no-ip.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of mié dic 29 09:17:17 -0300 2010:
> On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 5:13 AM, Jie Li <jay23jack(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Please see the following plan:
> >
> > postgres=# explain select * from small_table left outer join big_table using
> > (id);
> > QUERY PLAN
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Hash Left Join (cost=126408.00..142436.98 rows=371 width=12)
> > Hash Cond: (small_table.id = big_table.id)
> > -> Seq Scan on small_table (cost=0.00..1.09 rows=9 width=8)
> > -> Hash (cost=59142.00..59142.00 rows=4100000 width=8)
> > -> Seq Scan on big_table (cost=0.00..59142.00 rows=4100000
> > width=8)
> > (5 rows)
> >
> > Here I have a puzzle, why not choose the small table to build hash table? It
> > can avoid multiple batches thus save significant I/O cost, isn't it?
>
> Yeah, you'd think. Can you post a full reproducible test case?
Also, what version is this?
--
Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Marko Tiikkaja | 2010-12-29 12:43:55 | Re: Re: new patch of MERGE (merge_204) & a question about duplicated ctid |
Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2010-12-29 12:39:35 | Re: pg_streamrecv for 9.1? |