On Tue, 27 Jul 2004, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> Greg Stark wrote:
> > > > do it for multi-column keys. It seems it would be nice if some
> > > > similar to (a,b,c) > (a1,b1,c1) worked for this.
> > Hum. It would seem my intuition matches the SQL92 spec and Postgres
> > this
> > wrong.
> > Even if Postgres did this right I'm not sure that would solve your
> > woes.
> > I imagine the first thing Postgres would do is rewrite it into regular
> > scalar
> > expressions. Ideally the optimizer should be capable of then deducing
> > the
> > scalar expressions that an index scan would be useful.
> Wow. For once, the standard is my friend. Well, what has to be done?
> :) Does pg do it the way it does for a reason? From the outside it
> seems like the planner would have an easier job if it can make a field
> by field comparison.
> Would a patch introducing the correct behavior (per the standard) be
> accepted? It seems pretty complicated (not to mention the planner
Given the comment on make_row_op,
* XXX it's really wrong to generate a simple AND combination for < <=
* > >=. We probably need to invent a new runtime node type to handle
* those correctly. For the moment, though, keep on doing this ...
I'd expect it'd be accepted.
In response to
pgsql-performance by date
|Next:||From: Greg Stark||Date: 2004-07-28 05:53:17|
|Subject: Re: best way to fetch next/prev record based on index|
|Previous:||From: Stan Bielski||Date: 2004-07-27 19:38:05|
|Subject: Optimizer refuses to hash join|