Re: [HACKERS] - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Ashutosh Bapat
Subject Re: [HACKERS]
Date
Msg-id CAFjFpRcx-gJ+ks2jT7Tq=vB8U9KydYTdS99Nv2N+Un905=eXug@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to [HACKERS]  (Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh.bapat@enterprisedb.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 9:40 AM, Ashutosh Bapat
<ashutosh.bapat@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Hmm. If I understand the patch correctly, it does not return any path
>>> when merge join is allowed and there are merge clauses but no hash
>>> clauses. In this case we will not create a foreign join path, loosing
>>> some optimization. If we remove GetExistingLocalJoinPath, which
>>> returns a path in those cases as well, we have a regression in
>>> performance.
>>
>>
>> Ok, will revise, but as I mentioned upthread, I'm not sure it's a good idea
>> to search the pathlist to get a merge join even in this case.  I'd vote for
>> creating a merge join path from the inner/outer paths in this case as well.
>> I think that would simplify the code as well.
>
> Creating a new path requires 1. memory 2. requires a search in inner
> and outer relations' pathlist (see my reply to your objection about
> unparameterized paths) 3. spends CPU cycles in costing the path as
> well as creating it. Searching for an existing path requires a search
> in only one relation's pathlist. The path should be there so we don't
> need to construct a new one.


The subject was removed from this reply for reasons unknown to me.
Will reply again on the relevant thread. Sorry for the inconvenience.

-- 
Best Wishes,
Ashutosh Bapat
EnterpriseDB Corporation
The Postgres Database Company



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Ashutosh Bapat
Date:
Subject: [HACKERS]
Next
From: Ashutosh Bapat
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] postgres_fdw bug in 9.6