* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote: > If we could allow NTUP_PER_BUCKET to drop when the hashtable is > expected to fit in memory either way, perhaps with some safety margin > (e.g. we expect to use less than 75% of work_mem), I bet that would > make the people who have been complaining about this issue happy. And > probably a few people who haven't been complaining, too: I don't > recall the precise performance numbers that were posted before, but > ISTR the difference between 10 and 1 was pretty dramatic.
This is more-or-less what I had been hoping to find time to do. As Tom
points out, more testing is needed, and there's still the trade-off
between "fits-in-L2" and "doesn't" which can make a pretty big
difference while building the hash table. Of course, once it's built,
it's faster to use it when it's larger as there are fewer collisions.
I do plan to come back to this and will hopefully find time over the
next few months.
Thanks,
Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
