From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: 9.3 Pre-proposal: Range Merge Join |
Date: | 2012-04-16 23:05:15 |
Message-ID: | 7344.1334617515@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Apr 16, 2012, at 1:40 AM, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> wrote:
>> See attached SQL for example. The
>> Problem statement: slow. Nested loops are the only option, although they
>> can benefit from an inner GiST index if available. But if the join is
>> happening up in the plan tree somewhere, then it's impossible for any
>> index to be available.
> Hmm. This sounds like something that Tom's recent work on
> parameterized plans ought to have fixed, or if not, it seems closely
> related.
Not really. It's still going to be a nestloop, and as such not terribly
well suited for queries where there are a lot of matchable rows on both
sides. The work I've been doing is really about making nestloops usable
in cases where join order restrictions formerly prevented it --- but
Jeff's complaint has nothing to do with that. (This thought also makes
me a bit dubious about the nearby suggestions that more indexes will
fix it.)
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Banck | 2012-04-16 23:21:09 | Re: Bug tracker tool we need (was: Last gasp) |
Previous Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2012-04-16 23:01:39 | Re: Bug tracker tool we need |