| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: OUTER JOIN performance regression remains in 8.3beta4 |
| Date: | 2008-01-08 21:20:51 |
| Message-ID: | 20080108212051.GA20485@alvh.no-ip.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Comparing the behavior of this to my patch for HEAD, I am coming to the
> conclusion that this is actually a *better* planning method than
> removing the redundant join conditions, even when they're truly
> rendundant! The reason emerges as soon as you look at cases involving
> more than a single join. If we strip the join condition from just one
> of the joins, then we find that the planner insists on doing that join
> last, whether it's a good idea or not, because clauseful joins are
> always preferred to clauseless joins in the join search logic.
Would it be a good idea to keep removing redundant clauses and rethink
the preference for clauseful joins, going forward?
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2008-01-08 21:31:18 | Re: Proposal - libpq Type System beta-0.8a (was PGparam) |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-01-08 21:11:16 | Re: OUTER JOIN performance regression remains in 8.3beta4 |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-01-08 21:40:20 | Re: OUTER JOIN performance regression remains in 8.3beta4 |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-01-08 21:11:16 | Re: OUTER JOIN performance regression remains in 8.3beta4 |