Ants Aasma <a...@cybertec.at> writes:
> On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 9:46 AM, Atri Sharma <atri.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I have been reading the current implementation of hash joins, and in
>> ExecScanHashBucket, which I understand is the actual lookup function,
>> we could potentially look at a bloom filter per bucket. Instead of
>> actually looking up each hash value for the outer relation, we could
>> just check the corresponding bloom filter for that bucket, and if we
>> get a positive, then lookup the actual values i.e. continue with our
>> current behaviour (since we could be looking at a false positive).
> The problem here is that if the hash table is in memory, doing a hash
> table lookup directly is likely to be cheaper than a bloom filter
> lookup,
Yeah. Given the plan to reduce NTUP_PER_BUCKET to 1, it's hard to see
how adding a Bloom filter phase could be anything except overhead. Even
with the current average bucket length, it doesn't sound very promising.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
