From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Steinar H. Gunderson <sgunderson@bigfoot.com>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Materializing a sequential scan
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 19:06:15 -0400
Message-ID: <12333.1130367975@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20051026213730.GA2295@uio.no>
References: <20051019174544.GA32303@samfundet.no>
<20051026213730.GA2295@uio.no>
"Steinar H. Gunderson" <sgunderson@bigfoot.com> writes:
> Any good ideas why 8.1 would refuse to do this, when 7.4 would do it? It does
> not matter how high I set my work_mem; even at 2.000.000 it refused to hash
> the subplan.
AFAICS, subplan_is_hashable() is testing the same conditions in 7.4 and
HEAD, so this isn't clear. Want to step through it and see where it's
deciding not to hash?
regards, tom lane
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, sgunderson@bigfoot.com
Subject: Re: Materializing a sequential scan
In-Reply-To: <12333.1130367975@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox