Re: Hash vs. HashJoin nodes

From: Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Hash vs. HashJoin nodes
Date: 2005-03-31 04:51:47
Message-ID: 424B81E3.208@familyhealth.com.au
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> One small objection is that we'd lose the ability to separately display
> the time spent building the hash table in EXPLAIN ANALYZE output. It's
> probably not super important, but might be a reason to keep two plan
> nodes in the tree.

Would a separate hash node help for these kinds of queries in the future:

SELECT * FROM table WHERE id IN (1,2,3,4,...massive list of scalars, ...);

Chris

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Mark Kirkwood 2005-03-31 04:52:27 Re: [HACKERS] contrib/pg_buffercache
Previous Message Tom Lane 2005-03-31 04:37:23 Re: Hash vs. HashJoin nodes