Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > "Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> It's possible that MS-SQL is doing something analogous to the >> hashed-subplan approach (hopefully with suitable tweaking for the NULL >> case) but even then it's hard to see how it could take only 9 sec. >> The cartesian product is too big.
> Fwiw it seems MS-SQL is doing something funny. The three plans posted in the > screenshots for the "small", "mediu", and "large" cases are: > ... > Postgres is doing something equivalent to the first plan. Hmm. I think the second plan is probably equivalent to the hashed-subplan behavior that you can get in PG by rewriting the query to NOT IN as I illustrated. The third plan looks to be the same thing plus some parallelization frammishes. I'm not clear on what "small/medium/large" means, in particular not on which of these corresponds to the OP's report of 9-second execution. regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly