Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Posible planner improvement?

From: Richard Huxton <dev(at)archonet(dot)com>
To: Luke Lonergan <LLonergan(at)greenplum(dot)com>
Cc: albert(at)sedifa(dot)com, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Posible planner improvement?
Date: 2008-05-21 13:09:49
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-performance
Luke Lonergan wrote:
> The problem is that the implied join predicate is not being
> propagated.  This is definitely a planner deficiency.

IIRC only equality conditions are propagated and gt, lt, between aren't. 
  I seem to remember that the argument given was that the cost of 
checking for the ability to propagate was too high for the frequency 
when it ocurred.

Of course, what was true for code and machines of 5 years ago might not 
be so today.

   Richard Huxton
   Archonet Ltd

In response to


pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: H. HallDate: 2008-05-21 14:10:53
Subject: "Big O" notation for postgres?
Previous:From: Luke LonerganDate: 2008-05-21 11:52:28
Subject: Re: Posible planner improvement?

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: NikhilsDate: 2008-05-21 13:20:02
Subject: Re: plpgsql: penalty due to double evaluation of parameters
Previous:From: Tatsuo IshiiDate: 2008-05-21 12:25:29
Subject: Re: WITH RECURSIVE patch V0.1

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group