| From: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone(dot)bigpanda(dot)com>, Dani Oderbolz <oderbolz(at)ecologic(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [SQL] "SELECT IN" Still Broken in 7.4b |
| Date: | 2003-08-21 22:01:46 |
| Message-ID: | 3F45414A.6030301@joeconway.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-sql |
Tom Lane wrote:
> I'm toying with the notion of ripping out that logic and instead
> building an in-memory hashtable of already-returned TIDs. This could
> theoretically run out of memory if the multiple indexscan returns enough
> tuples, but I think in practice that wouldn't happen because the planner
> wouldn't choose an indexscan when very large numbers of tuples are being
> selected.
I thought with your recent changes, you could use dynahash, which
already spills to disk instead of consuming all memory?
Joe
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-08-21 22:17:55 | Re: [SQL] "SELECT IN" Still Broken in 7.4b |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-08-21 21:56:02 | Re: Decent VACUUM (was: Buglist) |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-08-21 22:17:55 | Re: [SQL] "SELECT IN" Still Broken in 7.4b |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-08-21 21:46:03 | Re: [SQL] "SELECT IN" Still Broken in 7.4b |