Re: Hash join VS sort-merge, nested loops...

eshevtsov_at_my-deja.com wrote:
>In article <8m47f4$dj7$1_at_news.sinet.slb.com>,
> "Yong" <yhuang_at_indigopool.com> wrote:
>> I agree. Here's what Harrison says on page 161:
>>
>> and [a hash join] should outperform sort merge joins for
 large tables
 when
>> one table is much larger than the other
>> ...
>> The hash join requires no sorting...
>>
>
>Do you want to say that a process of the hash table building (I
 mean
>the smallest of two rows set) doesn't require sorting? Is it
 true?
>
>Edward
>

Yes the statement that the hash join process does not require the use of a sort to perform the join process is true, but an order by clause on the sql statement would still require that a sort be done on the result set before it is returned.

• Mark D. Powell -- The only advice that counts is the advice that you follow so follow your own advice. --

  ---

Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com. Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com Received on Tue Aug 01 2000 - 00:00:00 CDT