On Mon, 2010-08-30 at 13:34 +0100, Greg Stark wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 10:18 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > cost_hashjoin() has some treatment of what occurs when numbatches > 1
> > but that additional cost is not proportional to numbatches.
>
> Because that's not how our hash batching works.
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 10:18 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> cost_hashjoin() has some treatment of what occurs when numbatches > 1
> but that additional cost is not proportional to numbatches.
Because that's not how our hash batching works. We generate two temp
files for each batch, one for the outer a
cost_hashjoin() has some treatment of what occurs when numbatches > 1
but that additional cost is not proportional to numbatches.
The associated comment talks about "an extra time", making it sound like
we think numbatches would only ever be 2 (or 1).
Can someone explain the current code, or is
