From: | "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: why hash on the primary key? |
Date: | 2008-11-29 13:31:48 |
Message-ID: | 603c8f070811290531q73e45615u567ffd7ddf79f310@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
> What's strange about it? A probe into an in-memory hashtable is a lot
> cheaper than a probe into an index, so this type of plan makes plenty
> of sense if the hashtable will fit in RAM and there are going to be a
> lot of probes. (Where "a lot" means "enough to amortize the cost of
> building the hashtable", of course.)
Hmm... it didn't occur to me that the index probe itself might be
more expensive than a hash probe. Is that due to concurrency control,
or are you talking about the need to possibly read index pages in from
disk?
>> Experimentation shows this is actually about 25% faster.
>
> Well, that just says your cost parameters need a bit of adjustment
> if you'd like the planner to get the crossover point exactly right.
Any sense of which ones might be worth fiddling with?
...Robert
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-11-29 15:43:05 | Re: why hash on the primary key? |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2008-11-29 13:29:18 | Re: why hash on the primary key? |