Re: [PERFORM] Hash Anti Join performance degradation
| От | Robert Haas |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: [PERFORM] Hash Anti Join performance degradation |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | BANLkTim=Tp55eM1Ch6VMtkHT5Tr=Xvnq5g@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: [PERFORM] Hash Anti Join performance degradation (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
| Ответы |
Re: [PERFORM] Hash Anti Join performance degradation
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 4:25 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Because of the way that a bitmap heap scan works, the rows are > guaranteed to be loaded into the hash table in physical order, which > means (in the fast case) that the row with the largest "id" value gets > loaded last. And because ExecHashTableInsert pushes each row onto the > front of its hash chain, that row ends up at the front of the hash > chain. Net result: for all the outer rows that aren't the one with > maximum id, we get a joinqual match at the very first entry in the hash > chain. Since it's an antijoin, we then reject that outer row and go > on to the next. The join thus ends up costing us only O(N) time. Ah! Make sense. If I'm reading your explanation right, this means that we could have hit a similar pathological case on a nestloop as well, just with a data ordering that is the reverse of what we have here? -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: