3 ms·
Well that's exactly my complaint. The bug I filed above was pretty much the optimal case (one huge table, one very small table, both ordered by the join key) an
by Boxxed 1y ago
Well that's exactly my complaint. The bug I filed above was pretty much the optimal case (one huge table, one very small table, both ordered by the join key) and it still OoMs.
- mplanchard 1y agoYeah it sucks at joins! If you can restructure your query to use an IN, or first limit the large table in a CTE and then JOIN, you may see better results. So far we haven’t found any cases where it couldn’t manage the task, but we have often had to be clever about join strategies. Depending on your use case, an incremental materialized view can also be really effective: when new rows for one table come in, query for related rows in a secondary table and populate the combination into a MV for efficient querying. You can also specify specific join strategies for queries, but we haven’t had as much luck with that so far. The JOIN thing is definitely the biggest pain point, though, I’ll not debate that at all.