Re: Proposal for Merge Join for Non '=' Operators
От | Dilip kumar |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Proposal for Merge Join for Non '=' Operators |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 4205E661176A124FAF891E0A6BA9135266305098@szxeml509-mbs.china.huawei.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Proposal for Merge Join for Non '=' Operators (Dilip kumar <dilip.kumar@huawei.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Proposal for Merge Join for Non '=' Operators
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 10 April 2014 14:21, I wrote > > I shall perform some more test, for that I need to do some more hack in > the code and I will post them soon.. > > Test Scenario: > Create table t1 (a int, b int); > Create table t2 (a int, b int); > > Random record inserted in t1 and t2, as per attached files. (10K > records are inserted in both the tables) > > Performance is taken for the query : select count(*) from t1,t2 > where t1.b < t2.b; > > Test Result: > Nest Loop Join : Time: 36038.842 ms > Merge Join : Time: 19774.975 ms > Number of record selected: 42291979 I have some more testing with index and multiple conditions.. Test Scenario: Create table t1 (a int, b int); Create table t2 (a int, b int); Create index t1_idx t1(b);Create index t1_idx t1(b); Query: select count(*) from t1,t2 where t1.b<t2.b and t1.b > 12000; Test Result: Nest Loop Join with Index Scan : 1653.506 ms Sort Merge Join for (seq scan) : 610.257ms From above both the scenario Sort merge join for < operator is faster than NLJ (using seq scan or index scan). Any suggestion for other performance scenarios are welcome.. Thanks & Regards, Dilip Kumar
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: