Re: tweaking NTUP_PER_BUCKET

From: Tomas Vondra <tv(at)fuzzy(dot)cz>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: tweaking NTUP_PER_BUCKET
Date: 2014-07-03 21:45:23
Message-ID: 53B5CEF3.1010305@fuzzy.cz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 3.7.2014 20:50, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> Hi Stephen,
>
> On 3.7.2014 20:10, Stephen Frost wrote:
>> Tomas,
>>
>> * Tomas Vondra (tv(at)fuzzy(dot)cz) wrote:
>>> However it's likely there are queries where this may not be the case,
>>> i.e. where rebuilding the hash table is not worth it. Let me know if you
>>> can construct such query (I wasn't).
>>
>> Thanks for working on this! I've been thinking on this for a while
>> and this seems like it may be a good approach. Have you considered a
>> bloom filter over the buckets..? Also, I'd suggest you check the
>> archives from about this time last year for test cases that I was
>> using which showed cases where hashing the larger table was a better
>> choice- those same cases may also show regression here (or at least
>> would be something good to test).
>
> Good idea, I'll look at the test cases - thanks.

I can't find the thread / test cases in the archives. I've found this
thread in hackers:

http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAOeZVif-R-iLF966wEipk5By-KhzVLOqpWqurpaK3p5fYw-Rdw@mail.gmail.com

Can you point me to the right one, please?

regards
Tomas

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2014-07-03 21:55:40 Re: Pg_upgrade and toast tables bug discovered
Previous Message Tom Lane 2014-07-03 21:09:41 Re: Pg_upgrade and toast tables bug discovered