* Tom Lane (tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> > What I'm trying to get at in this overall email is: why in the world is
> > it so expensive to do hash lookups?
>
> perf or oprofile reveal anything?
Working on a test case actually- I've got one now:
http://snowman.net/~sfrost/test_case2.sql
In this example, hashing the large table is actually 2 seconds *faster*
than hashing the small table (again, all on my laptop).
> Also, I assume that the cases you are looking at are large enough that
> even the "small" table doesn't fit in a single hash batch?
No, quite the opposite, sorry for not mentioning that before. Either
side fits completely into memory w/ a single batch. The explain
analyze's that I posted before show that, either way, there's only one
batch involved.
> (You never did mention what work_mem setting you're testing, anyway.)
With the test case above (where I got a 2s faster run time by hashing
the big table) used a work_mem of 1GB.
Thanks!
Stephen
