From: | "Alex Hunsaker" <badalex(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "Zdenek Kotala" <Zdenek(dot)Kotala(at)sun(dot)com>, "Xiao Meng" <mx(dot)cogito(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org, "Jonah H(dot) Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: hash index improving v3 |
Date: | 2008-09-05 00:42:53 |
Message-ID: | 34d269d40809041742r6a0703dbgfbdd012f7f19de2e@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 5:11 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> So my thinking right now is that we should just test this patch as-is.
> If it doesn't show really horrid performance when there are lots of
> hash key collisions, we should forget the store-both-things idea and
> just go with this.
Ok let me know if this is to naive of an approach or not hitting the
right cases you want tested.
create table hash_a (same text, uniq text);
insert into hash_a (same, uniq) select 'same', n from
generate_series(0, 5000) as n;
create table hash_b (uniq text);
insert into hash_b (uniq) select n from generate_series(5000, 10000) as n;
pgbench -c 1 -t 100 -n -f of the following
hash_same.sql:
set enable_seqscan to off;
set enable_mergejoin to off;
select 1 from hash_a as a inner join hash_a as aa on aa.same = a.same;
hash_uniq.sql:
set enable_seqscan to off;
set enable_mergejoin to off;
select 1 from hash_a as a inner join hash_b as b on b.uniq = a.uniq;
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-09-05 01:13:18 | Re: hash index improving v3 |
Previous Message | Benedek László | 2008-09-05 00:42:15 | Re: pg_dump roles support |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-09-05 01:13:18 | Re: hash index improving v3 |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-09-04 23:11:28 | Re: hash index improving v3 |