Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.183])
	by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7B37632199
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@mail.postgresql.org>;
	Fri, 17 Apr 2009 12:08:26 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86])
	by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 71872-08
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@mail.postgresql.org>;
	Fri, 17 Apr 2009 12:08:26 -0300 (ADT)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130])
	by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84D7E62DBDD
	for <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>;
	Fri, 17 Apr 2009 12:08:25 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id n3HF8OEF021401;
	Fri, 17 Apr 2009 11:08:24 -0400 (EDT)
To: Kris Jurka <books@ejurka.com>
cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: No hash join across partitioned tables? 
In-reply-to: <49E89B29.10705@ejurka.com> 
References: <Pine.BSO.4.64.0904161836540.11937@leary.csoft.net>
	<7163.1239923531@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<Pine.BSO.4.64.0904161921080.11937@leary.csoft.net>
	<Pine.BSO.4.64.0904162046050.27034@leary.csoft.net>
	<21238.1239980554@sss.pgh.pa.us> <49E89B29.10705@ejurka.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Kris Jurka <books@ejurka.com>
	message dated "Fri, 17 Apr 2009 08:07:21 -0700"
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 11:08:24 -0400
Message-ID: <21400.1239980904@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.41 tagged_above=0 required=5
	tests=SUBJECT_FUZZY_TION=0.41
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Archive-Number: 200904/287
X-Sequence-Number: 33654

Kris Jurka <books@ejurka.com> writes:
> The hash join takes less than twenty seconds, the other two joins I 
> killed after five minutes.  I can try to collect explain analyze results 
> later today if you'd like.

Please, unless the test case you already posted has similar behavior.

			regards, tom lane