From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Kevin Grittner <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>
Cc: pasman pasma*ski <pasman.p@gmail.com>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: tidscan not work ? Pg 8.4.5 + WinXP
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 11:49:55 -0500
Message-ID: <28019.1291135795@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4CF4D5760200002500037F7D@gw.wicourts.gov>
References: <AANLkTimQhTkwM7_DU69XtKVNKqXTZebofzn1qysdOYBw@mail.gmail.com>
<4CF4D5760200002500037F7D@gw.wicourts.gov>
"Kevin Grittner" <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov> writes:
> pasman pasma*ski<pasman.p@gmail.com> wrote:
>> This below not works :-( Always is used merge join.
>> SELECT * FROM test1 join test2 on(test1.ctid=test2.ct)
> You're reading through the entirety of two tables matching rows
> between them. What makes you think random access would be faster
> than sequential?
FWIW, it isn't going to happen anyway, because the TID scan mechanism
doesn't support scanning based on a join condition. That hasn't gotten
to the top of the to-do list because the use case is almost vanishingly
small. ctids generally aren't stable enough for it to be useful to
store references to one table's ctids in another table.
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, Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov, pasman.p@gmail.com
Subject: Re: tidscan not work ? Pg 8.4.5 + WinXP
In-Reply-To: <28019.1291135795@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