Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> Tom, do we really want to add a GUC that is used just for comparison of
> performance? I know we have the seqscan on/off, but there are valid
> reasons to do that. Do you think there will be cases where it will
> faster to have this hash setting off?
Sure --- that's why the planner code is going to great lengths to try to
choose the faster one. Even if I didn't think that, it'll be at least
as useful as, say, enable_indexscan.
regards, tom lane
