Comments on: Probe Residual when you have a Hash Match – a hidden cost in execution plans

By: Yash Gemini

Yash Gemini — Mon, 29 Mar 2021 01:23:14 +0000

Thanks. Nicely explained.

By: Manu

Manu — Mon, 18 May 2020 09:54:52 +0000

Quite helpful. Thanks!

By: Lokesh

Lokesh — Thu, 07 Sep 2017 19:40:08 +0000

Thanks Rob for such great blogs.Very interesting and well described.

By: Harper

Harper — Tue, 23 Aug 2016 06:32:22 +0000

The post is so interesting. But how about the Nested Loop? Could we need using APPLY operator to solved the residual predicate?

By: Jeroen

Jeroen — Thu, 11 Feb 2016 12:59:02 +0000

Nice post! Thanks!

By: Rob Farley

Rob Farley — Wed, 16 Sep 2015 00:12:44 +0000

You like the stuff on LQS? Cool! You can have a raise!

By: jeff

jeff — Tue, 15 Sep 2015 18:40:17 +0000

Your only reader? I doubt it – your posts are really interesting! (Digging the stuff on LQS.) Maybe I’m the most OCD… 🙂

By: Rob Farley

Rob Farley — Fri, 04 Sep 2015 00:15:24 +0000

Hi Jeff – yes, that’s a typo. 4.5 years this post has been up, and no one’s mentioned that typo before. Maybe you’re my only reader?

By: jeff

jeff — Thu, 03 Sep 2015 19:43:57 +0000

"You’ll see here that for each Product we find, we look up the Subcategory name for it." Isn’t that backwards? Hover over a "Nested Loops (Inner Join)" operator: "For each row in the top (outer) input, scan the bottom (inner) input, and output matching rows."

By: Rob Farley

Rob Farley — Mon, 10 Mar 2014 08:14:02 +0000

Hmm… As I wrote over on that post, it’s working for me…