David Rowley writes:
> On 10 July 2018 at 11:44, RK wrote:
>> There is a costing bug in hash join logic seems to have been introduced by
>> the patch related to inner_unique enhancements(commit:
>> 9c7f5229ad68d7e0e4dd149e3f80257893e404d4).
> Thanks for the analysis and the report. I agree the c
On 10 July 2018 at 22:21, David Rowley wrote:
> I've done that in the attached. Also on reading the comment above, it
> looks slightly incorrect. To me, it looks like it's applying a
> twentieth of the cost and not a tenth as the comment claims. I
> couldn't resist updating that too.
I've added
There is a costing bug in hash join logic seems to have been introduced by
the patch related to inner_unique enhancements(commit:
9c7f5229ad68d7e0e4dd149e3f80257893e404d4). Specifically, "hashjointuples"
which tracks the number of matches for hash clauses is computed wrong for
inner unique scenario
On 10 July 2018 at 11:44, RK wrote:
> There is a costing bug in hash join logic seems to have been introduced by
> the patch related to inner_unique enhancements(commit:
> 9c7f5229ad68d7e0e4dd149e3f80257893e404d4). Specifically, "hashjointuples"
> which tracks the number of matches for hash clause
There is a costing bug in hash join logic seems to have been introduced by
the patch related to inner_unique enhancements(commit:
9c7f5229ad68d7e0e4dd149e3f80257893e404d4). Specifically, "hashjointuples"
which tracks the number of matches for hash clauses is computed wrong for
inner unique scenario
