Re: Should consider materializing the cheapest inner path in consider_parallel_nestloop()

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Richard Guo <guofenglinux(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: tender wang <tndrwang(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Should consider materializing the cheapest inner path in consider_parallel_nestloop()
Date: 2023-09-07 19:14:50
Message-ID: CA+TgmobPBCvTHnBVn+a-=MS7pO_PUvtiLJkYo=BOrUjOxTss8g@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Sep 5, 2023 at 8:07 AM Richard Guo <guofenglinux(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Yeah, this seems an omission in commit 45be99f8.

It's been a while, but I think I omitted this deliberately because I
didn't really understand the value of it and wanted to keep the
planning cost down.

The example query provided here seems rather artificial. Surely few
people write a join clause that references neither of the tables being
joined. Is there a more realistic case where this makes a big
difference?

--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2023-09-07 19:29:48 Re: Eliminate redundant tuple visibility check in vacuum
Previous Message Melanie Plageman 2023-09-07 19:09:54 Re: Eliminate redundant tuple visibility check in vacuum