X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org
Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.144])
	by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 084F352806
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org>;
	Tue,  9 Aug 2005 11:43:40 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71])
	by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 97420-01
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org>;
	Tue,  9 Aug 2005 14:43:30 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from mailhost.intellivid.com (mailhost.intellivid.com
 [64.32.200.11])
	by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CAD3A5293D
	for <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>;
	Tue,  9 Aug 2005 11:43:28 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from [192.168.2.68] (spectre.intellivid.com [192.168.2.68])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(Client did not present a certificate)
	by newmail.intellivid.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD829F182AF;
	Tue,  9 Aug 2005 10:43:33 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Why hash join instead of nested loop?
From: Ian Westmacott <ianw@intellivid.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
In-Reply-To: <15881.1123598017@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <41b0fe890508051135712a086b@mail.gmail.com>
	<001801c59a0a$f4be7480$9a00a8c0@OTTO>
	<41b0fe8905080516164464e04f@mail.gmail.com>
	<15425.1123304631@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<41b0fe89050808100021a2a4fc@mail.gmail.com>
	<10930.1123549106@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<1123589756.15206.4.camel@spectre.intellivid.com>
	<15881.1123598017@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Type: text/plain
Organization: Intellivid Corp.
Message-Id: <1123598613.15206.17.camel@spectre.intellivid.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.6 
Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2005 10:43:33 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Archive-Number: 200508/78
X-Sequence-Number: 13825

Yes, sorry, two totally different machines.  The 7.4.8
run was on a dual P4 3.2GHz, and the 7.4.2 run was on
a dual hyperthreaded Xeon 2.4GHz.

	--Ian


On Tue, 2005-08-09 at 10:33, Tom Lane wrote:
> Ian Westmacott <ianw@intellivid.com> writes:
> > On Mon, 2005-08-08 at 20:58, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> I'd be interested to see results from other people using 7.4.* too.
> 
> > 7.4.8:
> >  Total runtime: 0.198 ms
> 
> > 7.4.2:
> >  Total runtime: 0.697 ms
> 
> Just to be clear: those are two different machines of different speeds,
> right?  I don't believe we put any factor-of-three speedups into 7.4.*
> after release ;-)
> 
> 			regards, tom lane