Tom Lane wrote:
> Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> writes:
>>No, postgres didn't do things in reverse order. It hashed the empty table and
>>then went ahead and checked every record of the non-empty table against the
>>empty hash table.
>>Reading the code there's no check for this, and it seems like it would be a
>>useful low-cost little optimization.
> Yeah, I was just looking at doing that.
> It would also be interesting to prefetch one row from the outer table and fall
> out immediately (without building the hash table) if the outer table is
> empty. This seems to require some contortion of the code though :-(
>>I think postgres normally hashes the table it thinks is smaller,
> Right, it will prefer to put the physically smaller table (estimated
> width*rows) on the inside.
Do you plan to do a patch for the 7.4, so I'll wait for a 7.4.6 ( that IIRC have already
two important patches pending ) or is 8.0 stuff ?
In response to
pgsql-performance by date
|Next:||From: Harald Fuchs||Date: 2004-09-23 14:24:46|
|Subject: Re: Caching of Queries|
|Previous:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2004-09-23 13:35:45|
|Subject: Re: O_DIRECT setting|
pgsql-patches by date
|Next:||From: Michael Paesold||Date: 2004-09-23 20:04:29|
|Subject: Re: psql: rollback only last query on error|
|Previous:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2004-09-23 13:20:45|
|Subject: Re: SSL Error Code logging.|