Re: MergeJoin beats HashJoin in the case of multiple hash clauses

From: Tender Wang <tndrwang(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Andrei Lepikhov <lepihov(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: MergeJoin beats HashJoin in the case of multiple hash clauses
Date: 2025-07-20 00:05:58
Message-ID: CAHewXN=7+738QPPdhxgKbHeQa_ahEbC7Aw+VoJpOxe1PZ5uVng@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> 于2025年7月20日周日 02:25写道:

> Tender Wang <tndrwang(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > Please take a look at the attached v3 patch.
>
> This is of course not ever going to make any visible performance
> difference. Still, the code is arguably clearer like this, and
> I added some comments in hopes of improving it some more.
> Pushed.
>
> regards, tom lane
>

Thanks for pushing.
--
Thanks,
Tender Wang

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu) 2025-07-20 03:05:37 RE: Conflict detection for update_deleted in logical replication
Previous Message Tom Lane 2025-07-19 22:57:10 Re: pg_logical_slot_get_changes waits continously for a partial WAL record spanning across 2 pages