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 9DEE752AE5 for ; Tue, 9 Aug 2005 11:33:40 -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 56198-06 for ; Tue, 9 Aug 2005 14:33:33 +0000 (GMT) Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6923552A36 for ; Tue, 9 Aug 2005 11:33:32 -0300 (ADT) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j79EXbji015882; Tue, 9 Aug 2005 10:33:37 -0400 (EDT) To: Ian Westmacott Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Why hash join instead of nested loop? In-reply-to: <1123589756.15206.4.camel@spectre.intellivid.com> 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> Comments: In-reply-to Ian Westmacott message dated "Tue, 09 Aug 2005 08:15:56 -0400" Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2005 10:33:37 -0400 Message-ID: <15881.1123598017@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.006 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=AWL X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200508/77 X-Sequence-Number: 13824 Ian Westmacott 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