Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.208.211]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB937630EAD for ; Fri, 17 Apr 2009 12:12:41 -0300 (ADT) Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.211]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 14173-05 for ; Fri, 17 Apr 2009 12:12:39 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: delayed 00:05:19.804606 by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail63.csoft.net (mail63.csoft.net [205.205.214.4]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A76B862DBDD for ; Fri, 17 Apr 2009 12:12:39 -0300 (ADT) Received: from [192.168.7.181] (cpe-76-94-246-223.socal.res.rr.com [76.94.246.223]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail63.csoft.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 853CA28412; Fri, 17 Apr 2009 11:07:18 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <49E89B29.10705@ejurka.com> Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 08:07:21 -0700 From: Kris Jurka User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Windows/20090302) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tom Lane CC: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: No hash join across partitioned tables? References: <7163.1239923531@sss.pgh.pa.us> <21238.1239980554@sss.pgh.pa.us> In-Reply-To: <21238.1239980554@sss.pgh.pa.us> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: 200904/288 X-Sequence-Number: 33655 Tom Lane wrote: > Is there another issue here besides that one? I think you were hoping > that the hash join would be faster than the alternatives, but the cost > estimate says it's a lot slower. Is that actually the case? > 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. Kris Jurka