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

Tender Wang <tndrwang(at)gmail(dot)com> 于2025年7月3日周四 17:48写道：

>
>
> Andrei Lepikhov <lepihov(at)gmail(dot)com> 于2025年7月3日周四 17:23写道：
>
>> On 3/7/2025 04:02, Tender Wang wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > Andrei Lepikhov <lepihov(at)gmail(dot)com <mailto:lepihov(at)gmail(dot)com>> 于2025年7
>> > 月2日周三 22:29写道：
>> >
>> > On 30/6/2025 04:38, Tender Wang wrote:
>> > > Do you think it's worth doing this?
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Hi all,
>> > >
>> > > I have added this patch to commitfest[1]. I'm hoping someone can
>> > review
>> > > it for me.
>> > It makes sense to apply. If you return the comment to its place, you
>> > may
>> > reduce the patch size even more.
>> >
>> >
>> > Thanks for reviewing. I returned the comment to its place. Please
>> review
>> > the attached patch.
>> Do you really need to initialise clauses with the NIL value? I guess, it
>> may be avoided because later you non-alternatively init it with a copy
>> of hash clauses.
>>
>
> Yeah, no need to initialize clauses to NIL.
>

Please take a look at the attached v3 patch.
And I have changed the status to Ready for Committer in the [1].

[1] https://commitfest.postgresql.org/patch/5704/

--
Thanks,
Tender Wang