Is there a TODO anywhere in this discussion? If so, please let me know.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mischa Sandberg wrote:
> Quoting Mark Lewis <mark.lewis@mir3.com>:
>
> > If the original paper was published in 1984, then it's been more than
> > 20 years. Any potential patents would already have expired, no?
>
> Don't know, but the idea is pervasive among different vendors ...
> perhaps that's a clue.
>
> And having now read beyond the start of ExecHashJoin(), I can see that
> PG does indeed implement Grace hash; and the implementation is nice and
> clean.
>
> If there were room for improvement, (and I didn't see it in the source)
> it would be the logic to:
>
> - swap inner and outer inputs (batches) when the original inner turned
> out to be too large for memory, and the corresponding outer did not. If
> you implement that anyway (complicates the loops) then it's no trouble
> to just hash the smaller of the two, every time; saves some CPU.
>
> - recursively partition batches where both inner and outer input batch
> ends up being too large for memory, too; or where the required number of
> batch output buffers alone is too large for working RAM. This is only
> for REALLY big inputs.
>
> Note that you don't need a bad hash function to get skewed batch sizes;
> you only need a skew distribution of the values being hashed.
>
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
> subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
> message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
>
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
