>> WHERE (l2.start BETWEEN l1.start AND l1.end
>> l1.start BETWEEN l2.start AND l2.end
>Yes, that's another way to calculate an overlap. However, it turns out to not be that fast.
>The problem is that OR there, which causes a bitmap index scan, as the leaf of a nested loop join,
>which can be rather slow.
Ok , than splitting these checks in 2 Queries with UNION is better.
But I often read that BETWEEN is faster than using 2 comparison operators.
Here I guess that a combined index on (start,end) makes sense:
WHERE l2.start BETWEEN l1.start AND l1.end
WHERE l1.start BETWEEN l2.start AND l2.end
The first clause being equivalent to
AND l1.start <= l2.end
AND l1.end >= l2.start
AND l1.start <= l2.start
I don't know how you have to deal the limit conditions...
In response to
pgsql-performance by date
|Next:||From: Matthew Wakeling||Date: 2009-03-30 15:57:16|
|Subject: Re: Very specialised query |
|Previous:||From: Mario Splivalo||Date: 2009-03-30 15:34:31|
|Subject: Re: Forcing seq_scan off for large table joined with tiny
table yeilds improved performance|