Re: hash join vs nested loop join - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Huan Ruan
Subject Re: hash join vs nested loop join
Date
Msg-id CAD1stZuf2Xw1RmDaZkNVZeq6MUcyPjYP8HVhd+6rSomX__ij1g@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: hash join vs nested loop join  ("Kevin Grittner" <kgrittn@mail.com>)
List pgsql-performance



Frankly, at 12 microseconds per matched pair of rows, I think
you're doing OK.

This plan is the good one, I want the indexscan nested loop join and this is only achieved after making all these costing factors change. Before that, it was hash join and was very slow.

However, I'm worried about the config changes being too 'extreme', i.e. both sequential I/O and random I/O have the same cost and being only 0.1. So, I was more wondering why I have to make such dramatic changes to convince the optimiser to use NL join instead of hash join. And also, I'm not sure what impact will these changes have on other queries yet. e.g. will a query that's fine with hash join now choose NL join and runs slower? 

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Richard Neill
Date:
Subject: Re: Why does the query planner use two full indexes, when a dedicated partial index exists?
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Why does the query planner use two full indexes, when a dedicated partial index exists?