From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Jie Li <jay23jack(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: small table left outer join big table |
Date: | 2010-12-29 12:59:19 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTim77uhiyCkfTfUW2Az47EtM163ztTk1eSOC+nFg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 7:34 AM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-12-29 at 07:17 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
>> >
>> > Here I have a puzzle, why not choose the small table to build hash table? It
>> > can avoid multiple batches thus save significant I/O cost, isn't it?
>>
>> Yeah, you'd think. Can you post a full reproducible test case?
>
> It's not a bug, that's the way it currently works. We don't need a test
> case for that.
>
> I agree that the optimisation would be a useful one.
>
> It allows you to ask the query "Show me sales for each of my stores"
> efficiently, rather than being forced to request the inner join query
> "Show me the sales for each of my stores for which there have been
> sales", which is a much less useful query.
Oh, you're right. I missed the fact that it's a left join.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Aidan Van Dyk | 2010-12-29 13:17:25 | Re: pg_dump --split patch |
Previous Message | Noah Misch | 2010-12-29 12:56:25 | Avoiding rewrite in ALTER TABLE ALTER TYPE |