On Wed, 2007-04-04 at 10:23 -0700, Jeff Davis wrote: > > - a hash join > > This is where I got stuck. > > * If it's one big ( > NBuffers/2 ) table and one small table, the small > table will only serve to occupy some shared_buffers (right? > * If it's two big tables, a join would be a major operation. I don't > think it would even choose a hash join in that situation, right?
The large table will do a SeqScan though, so should hit your code. Just look at the EXPLAIN first. > To summarize, in the next round of testing, I will > * disable sync_seqscan_offset completely > * use recycle_buffers=0 and 32 > * I'll still test against 8.2.3 for consistency in case you suggest > otherwise. Sounds OK. -- Simon Riggs EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
