Path: dp-news.maxwell.syr.edu!spool.maxwell.syr.edu!drn.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!postnews.google.com!g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: "tq" <tomm_quinn@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups: comp.databases.oracle.server
Subject: 2 table hash join order
Date: 6 Jun 2005 14:59:00 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 8
Message-ID: <1118095140.061617.98390@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 208.240.243.170
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1118095145 328 127.0.0.1 (6 Jun 2005 21:59:05 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 21:59:05 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: G2/0.2
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com; posting-host=208.240.243.170;
   posting-account=nQGbzQ0AAABOV7aIcjtXbSCj4b4i0nLg
Xref: dp-news.maxwell.syr.edu comp.databases.oracle.server:244387


I have a simple question - If I have 2 tables, 1 small and 1 large,
what are the implications of the table order if I'm using a hash join?
Does it matter? Oracle has got to create the hash keys on both join
columns anyway. What about if the large table is too large to fit the
total hashed key into memory - is it better to drive from small to
large in this case? Thanks for input.