Re: No hash join across partitioned tables?

Tom Lane wrote:

> Is there another issue here besides that one?  I think you were hoping
> that the hash join would be faster than the alternatives, but the cost
> estimate says it's a lot slower.  Is that actually the case?
> 

The hash join takes less than twenty seconds, the other two joins I 
killed after five minutes.  I can try to collect explain analyze results 
later today if you'd like.

Kris Jurka