On Wed, Sep 20, 2023, at 4:49 PM, David Rowley wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Sept 2023 at 19:56, Andrey Lepikhov
> <a.lepikhov@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
>> What could you say about a different way: hybrid join? In MS SQL Server,
>> they have such a feature [1], and, according to their description, it
>> requires low overhead. They start from HashJoin and switch to NestLoop
>> if the inner input contains too small tuples. It solves the issue, Isn't it?
>
> A complexity which you may not be considering here is that Nested Loop
> joins always preserve the tuple order from the outer side of the join,
> whereas hash joins will not do this when multi-batching.
My idea here is the same as MS SQL guys did: prefetch from the HashJoin inner some predefined number of tuples and, if
theplanner has made a mistake and overestimated it, move hash join inner to NestLoop as an outer.
The opposite strategy, "underestimation" - starting with NestLoop and switching to HashJoin looks more difficult, but
themain question is: is it worthwhile to research?
> I've no idea how the SQL Server engineers solved that.
>> [1]
>> https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/t5/sql-server-blog/introducing-batch-mode-adaptive-joins/ba-p/385411
--
Regards,
Andrei Lepikhov
