Re: Why hash join instead of nested loop?

Rhett Garber <rhettg@gmail.com> writes:
> Hash Join  (cost=5.96..7.04 rows=1 width=14) (actual
> time=10.591..10.609 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=0.011..0.022 rows=5 loops=1)
>    ->  Hash  (cost=5.96..5.96 rows=1 width=4) (actual
> time=0.109..0.109 rows=0 loops=1)
>          ->  Index Scan using connection_regid_obj1_index on
> connection  (cost=0.00..5.96 rows=1 width=4) (actual time=0.070..0.076
> rows=1 loops=1)
>                Index Cond: ((connection_registry_id = 40105) AND (obj1
> = 73582)) Total runtime: 11.536 ms
> (7 rows)

[ scratches head... ]  If the hash table build takes only 0.109 msec
and loads only one row into the hash table, and the scan of
rtmessagestate takes only 0.022 msec and produces only 5 rows, it is
real hard to see how the join takes 10.609 msec overall.  Unless the id
and obj2 columns are of a datatype with an incredibly slow equality
function.  What is the datatype involved here, anyway?  And what PG
version are we speaking of?

            regards, tom lane