X-Original-To: pgsql-hackers-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [64.117.224.130]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54B0ED1BA0D for ; Thu, 21 Aug 2003 19:09:38 -0300 (ADT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([64.117.224.193]) by localhost (neptune.hub.org [64.117.224.130]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 69623-10 for ; Thu, 21 Aug 2003 19:09:08 -0300 (ADT) Received: from joeconway.com (66-146-172-86.skyriver.net [66.146.172.86]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C8F6D1BACB for ; Thu, 21 Aug 2003 19:09:05 -0300 (ADT) Received: from [206.19.64.3] (account jconway HELO joeconway.com) by joeconway.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.0.6) with ESMTP-TLS id 36727; Thu, 21 Aug 2003 14:25:55 -0700 Message-ID: <3F45414A.6030301@joeconway.com> Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 15:01:46 -0700 From: Joe Conway User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.3) Gecko/20030312 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tom Lane Cc: Stephan Szabo , Dani Oderbolz , pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org Subject: Re: [SQL] "SELECT IN" Still Broken in 7.4b References: <20030821102627.C51705-100000@megazone.bigpanda.com> <25062.1061498540@sss.pgh.pa.us> In-Reply-To: <25062.1061498540@sss.pgh.pa.us> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at postgresql.org X-Archive-Number: 200308/971 X-Sequence-Number: 42628 Tom Lane wrote: > I'm toying with the notion of ripping out that logic and instead > building an in-memory hashtable of already-returned TIDs. This could > theoretically run out of memory if the multiple indexscan returns enough > tuples, but I think in practice that wouldn't happen because the planner > wouldn't choose an indexscan when very large numbers of tuples are being > selected. I thought with your recent changes, you could use dynahash, which already spills to disk instead of consuming all memory? Joe