Re: Improving planning of outer joins

From: "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Improving planning of outer joins
Date: 2005-12-15 16:57:40
Message-ID: 20051215165740.GC40699@pervasive.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 09:25:42AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> writes:
> > Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> >> There is some stuff in the literature about how to make transformations
> >> of the last kind, but it requires additional executor smarts to do strange
> >> sorts of "generalized outer join" operations.
>
> > Would these "generalized outer join" operations be general enough to handle IN
> > semantics? Or other subqueries?
>
> No, AFAICT it's just a weird way of defining a join operation.
>
> I did find some papers that talked about ways to push joins up and down
> past aggregations and GROUP BY, but that's a problem for another day.

Might be worth adding a TODO for that and including links to the papers.
There's enough people that seem to drop in with PhD thesis and what-not
pulled from the TODO that someone could end up doing this work for us.
--
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com
Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117
vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jim C. Nasby 2005-12-15 17:02:46 Re: 7.3 failure on platypus
Previous Message Jim C. Nasby 2005-12-15 16:50:48 Re: Interesting speed anomaly