Re: WIP: bloom filter in Hash Joins with batches - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From David Rowley
Subject Re: WIP: bloom filter in Hash Joins with batches
Date
Msg-id CAKJS1f9hCxfYrvxpEWROahi8jhmg47nFO0jdbd=aAupLkQ2JoQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: WIP: bloom filter in Hash Joins with batches  (Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 11 January 2016 at 09:30, Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
Hi,

On 01/10/2016 04:03 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 4:08 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com> wrote:
Also, are you aware of this?

http://www.nus.edu.sg/nurop/2010/Proceedings/SoC/NUROP_Congress_Cheng%20Bin.pdf

It talks about bloom filters for hash joins in PostgreSQL
specifically. Interestingly, they talk about specific TPC-H queries.

Interesting. The way that paper uses bloom filters is very different from what I do in the patch. They build the bloom filters and then propagate them into the scan nodes to eliminate the tuples early.


That does sound interesting, but unless I'm somehow mistaken, I guess to do that you'd have to abandon the more efficient hashing of the hash value that you're doing in the current patch, and hash the complete value in the scan node, then hash them again if they make it into the hash join node. That does not sound like it would be a win if hashing longer varlana values.
 
--
 David Rowley                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tomas Vondra
Date:
Subject: Re: WIP: bloom filter in Hash Joins with batches
Next
From: Peter Geoghegan
Date:
Subject: Re: ExecGather() + nworkers