Re: PATCH: hashjoin - gracefully increasing NTUP_PER_BUCKET instead of batching

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tomas Vondra <tv(at)fuzzy(dot)cz>
Cc: "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: PATCH: hashjoin - gracefully increasing NTUP_PER_BUCKET instead of batching
Date: 2014-12-11 02:51:10
Message-ID: CA+Tgmoa-==rtgzkNOES91o1Lurr1g5_vfM8cbfJNATjQSdcKeQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sat, Dec 6, 2014 at 10:08 PM, Tomas Vondra <tv(at)fuzzy(dot)cz> wrote:
> select a.i, b.i from a join b on (a.i = b.i);

I think the concern is that the inner side might be something more
elaborate than a plain table scan, like an aggregate or join. I might
be all wet, but my impression is that you can make rescanning
arbitrarily expensive if you work at it.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2014-12-11 02:52:17 Re: Lockless StrategyGetBuffer() clock sweep
Previous Message Noah Misch 2014-12-11 02:50:53 Re: tracking commit timestamps