On 12.7.2014 11:39, Simon Riggs wrote: > On 11 July 2014 18:25, Tomas Vondra <t...@fuzzy.cz> wrote: > >> Turns out getting this working properly will quite complicated. > > Lets keep this patch simple then. Later research can be another patch.
Well, the dense allocation is independent to the NTUP_PER_BUCKET changes, and only happened to be discussed here because it's related to hash joins. My plan was to keep it as a separate patch, thus not making the NTUP patch any more complex. > In terms of memory pressure, having larger joins go x4 faster has a > much more significant reducing effect on memory pressure than > anything else. So my earlier concerns seem less of a concern. OK. > So lets just this change done and then do more later. There's no way back, sadly. The dense allocation turned into a challenge. I like challenges. I have to solve it or I won't be able to sleep. regards Tomas -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
