On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 8:14 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Bryce Cutt <pandasuit@gmail.com> writes:
>> Here is the new patch.
>
> Applied with revisions. I undid some of the "optimizations" that
> cluttered the code in order to save a cycle or two per tuple --- as per
> previous discussion, that's not what the performance questions were
> about. Also, I did not like the terminology "in-memory"/"IM"; it seemed
> confusing since the main hash table is in-memory too. I revised the
> code to consistently refer to the additional hash table as a "skew"
> hashtable and the optimization in general as skew optimization. Hope
> that seems reasonable to you --- we could search-and-replace it to
> something else if you'd prefer.
>
> For the moment, I didn't really do anything about teaching the planner
> to account for this optimization in its cost estimates. The initial
> estimate of the number of MCVs that will be specially treated seems to
> me to be too high (it's only accurate if the inner relation is unique),
> but getting a more accurate estimate seems pretty hard, and it's not
> clear it's worth the trouble. Without that, though, you can't tell
> what fraction of outer tuples will get the short-circuit treatment.
If the inner relation isn't fairly close to unique you shouldn't be
using this optimization in the first place.
...Robert
