Re: Why hash join instead of nested loop?
От | Ian Westmacott |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Why hash join instead of nested loop? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1123589756.15206.4.camel@spectre.intellivid.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Why hash join instead of nested loop? (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Why hash join instead of nested loop?
|
Список | pgsql-performance |
On Mon, 2005-08-08 at 20:58, Tom Lane wrote: > I'd be interested to see results from other people using 7.4.* too. 7.4.8: QUERY PLAN ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hash Join (cost=4.83..5.91 rows=1 width=14) (actual time=0.122..0.126 rows=1 loops=1) Hash Cond: ("outer".id = "inner".obj2) -> Seq Scan on rtmessagestate (cost=0.00..1.05 rows=5 width=14) (actual time=0.003..0.006 rows=5 loops=1) -> Hash (cost=4.83..4.83 rows=1 width=4) (actual time=0.021..0.021 rows=0 loops=1) -> Index Scan using connection_regid_obj1_index on connection (cost=0.00..4.83 rows=1 width=4) (actual time=0.013..0.015 rows=1 loops=1) Index Cond: ((connection_registry_id = 40105) AND (obj1 = 73582)) Total runtime: 0.198 ms 7.4.2: QUERY PLAN ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hash Join (cost=4.83..5.91 rows=1 width=14) (actual time=0.577..0.600 rows=1 loops=1) Hash Cond: ("outer".id = "inner".obj2) -> Seq Scan on rtmessagestate (cost=0.00..1.05 rows=5 width=14) (actual time=0.006..0.023 rows=5 loops=1) -> Hash (cost=4.83..4.83 rows=1 width=4) (actual time=0.032..0.032 rows=0 loops=1) -> Index Scan using connection_regid_obj1_index on connection (cost=0.00..4.83 rows=1 width=4) (actual time=0.016..0.020 rows=1 loops=1) Index Cond: ((connection_registry_id = 40105) AND (obj1 = 73582)) Total runtime: 0.697 ms --Ian
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: