feat: implement hash join#156
Open
RichardKnop wants to merge 1 commit intomainfrom
Open
Conversation
Code Coverage✅ Total: 70.2% (threshold: 70%)
|
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Nested loop join (what minisql does today, with index on the join column):
Hash join (equi-join only):
So hash join is faster than unindexed nested loop on large tables, but it costs memory. The 64MB threshold doesn't mean "switch back to nested loop because it's better there" — it means "beyond this size, the build-side hash table may not fit in RAM, so in-memory hash join is no longer safe to use." A production DB would do grace hash join (spill to disk) instead; for minisql it's reasonable to just fall back to nested loop.
Corrected strategy for minisql:
The threshold protects memory, not because nested loop is algorithmically better at large scale — it's strictly worse without an index. So the plan should be inverted: use hash join for large-enough tables where a full scan is needed (making it worth the memory cost), and keep nested loop for small tables or indexed joins.