Re: Fixing Grittner's planner issues

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
Subject: Re: Fixing Grittner's planner issues
Date: 2009-02-19 18:20:49
Message-ID: 17145.1235067649@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

[ back to planner stuff after a hiatus ]

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Right, so maybe I wasn't as clear as I could have been in asking the
> question. I do understand how it can be a win to unique B and use it
> as the OUTER relation (jointype JOIN_UNIQUE_OUTER). What I don't
> understand is how it can ever be a win to unique B and use it as the
> INNER relation (jointype JOIN_UNIQUE_INNER).

Hmm, well, maybe B is *really* nonunique and unique'ifying it makes it
small enough to fit in a single-batch hash table?

Also, seriously nonunique RHS data is pretty awful for mergejoining
(too much rescanning) so I could imagine wanting to do it for a
mergejoin too.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2009-02-19 18:24:52 Re: vacuumdb --freeze
Previous Message Tom Lane 2009-02-19 17:49:51 Re: vacuumdb --freeze