Re: accounting for memory used for BufFile during hash joins

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Hubert Zhang <hzhang(at)pivotal(dot)io>, hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: accounting for memory used for BufFile during hash joins
Date: 2019-11-25 08:33:35
Message-ID: 20191125083335.GQ99720@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 03:47:51PM +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> My feeling is that we should get the BNLJ committed first, and then maybe
> use some of those additional strategies as fallbacks (depending on which
> issues are still unsolved by the BNLJ).

The glacier is melting more. Tomas, what's your status here? The
patch has been waiting on author for two months now. If you are not
planning to work more on this one, then it should be marked as
returned with feedback?
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jobin Augustine 2019-11-25 08:55:38 Re: [HACKERS] Incomplete startup packet errors
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2019-11-25 08:29:40 Re: pglz performance