"Timothy J. Kordas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Am I missing something about the current implementation ?

If the planner has correctly predicted the number of rows, the table
loading should be about NTUP_PER_BUCKET in either regime.  Are you
sure you aren't just wishing that NTUP_PER_BUCKET were smaller?
I don't see that making the hashtable much larger than ntuples
is a good idea --- that just spreads out the live entries over more
cache lines, resulting in more cache thrashing.

                        regards, tom lane

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?


Reply via email to