Re: NOT IN subquery optimization
От | David Rowley |
---|---|
Тема | Re: NOT IN subquery optimization |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAKJS1f9DfW0PFYzf1hw_PzkkbEVDhzqDg1xJkgSyBd+0T79jHg@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: NOT IN subquery optimization (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: NOT IN subquery optimization
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, 2 Mar 2019 at 12:13, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > "Li, Zheng" <zhelli@amazon.com> writes: > > Although adding "or var is NULL" to the anti join condition forces the planner to choose nested loop anti join, it isalways faster compared to the original plan. > > TBH, I am *really* skeptical of sweeping claims like that. The existing > code will typically produce a hashed-subplan plan, which ought not be > that awful as long as the subquery result doesn't blow out memory. > It certainly is going to beat a naive nested loop. It's pretty easy to show the claim is false using master and NOT EXISTS. create table small(a int not null); create table big (a int not null); insert into small select generate_Series(1,1000); insert into big select x%1000+1 from generate_Series(1,1000000) x; select count(*) from big b where not exists(select 1 from small s where s.a = b.a); Time: 178.575 ms select count(*) from big b where not exists(select 1 from small s where s.a = b.a or s.a is null); Time: 38049.969 ms (00:38.050) -- David Rowley http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: