From: | David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Performance improvement for joins where outer side is unique |
Date: | 2016-04-10 03:00:17 |
Message-ID: | CAKJS1f8xm+Kf9BcOMq37fUYZ6NYdRCVe8nqAhZqJ_oMUfpSNVA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 8 April 2016 at 02:46, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> I'm also a bit suspicious of the fact that some of the plans in
> aggregates.out changed from merge to hash joins; with basically
> no stats at hand in those tests, that seems dubious. A quick look
> at what the patch touched in costsize.c suggests that this might
> be because you've effectively allowed cost_hashjoin to give a cost
> discount for inner unique, but provided no similar intelligence
> in cost_mergejoin.
(catching up)
The only possible reason that the merge join plans have become a hash
join is that hash join is costed more cheaply (same as SEMI JOIN) when
the inner side is unique. The reason I didn't cost merge join
differently is that there seems to be no special costing done there
for SEMI joins already. I might be wrong, but I didn't feel like it
was up to this patch to introduce that, though, perhaps a patch should
go in before this one to do that.
I understand this is 9.7 stuff now, but I feel like I should tie up
the lose ends before they get forgotten.
--
David Rowley http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David Rowley | 2016-04-10 03:30:35 | Re: Performance improvement for joins where outer side is unique |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2016-04-10 02:08:01 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Bloom index contrib module |