Re: Automatic optimization of IN clauses via INNER JOIN

From: Craig Ringer <craig(at)postnewspapers(dot)com(dot)au>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Thomas Hamilton <thomashamilton76(at)yahoo(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Automatic optimization of IN clauses via INNER JOIN
Date: 2009-12-18 02:20:14
Message-ID: 4B2AE6DE.206@postnewspapers.com.au
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On 17/12/2009 11:57 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Thomas Hamilton<thomashamilton76(at)yahoo(dot)com> writes:
>> But in our testing under the same optimization and conditions INNER JOIN is significantly outperforming IN.
>
> [ shrug... ] You haven't provided any details, so it's impossible to
> offer any useful advice.

In other words: can we discuss this with reference to a specific case?
Please provide your queries, your EXPLAIN ANALYZE output, and other
relevant details as per:

http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/SlowQueryQuestions

I'd be interested in knowing whether the planner can perform such
transformations and if so why it doesn't myself. I have the vague
feeling there may be semantic differences in the handling of NULL but I
can't currently seem to puzzle them out.

--
Craig Ringer

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2009-12-18 06:27:11 Re: seq scan instead of index scan
Previous Message Scott Marlowe 2009-12-18 01:37:36 Re: seq scan instead of index scan