From: | "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> |
---|---|
To: | <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Subject: | Re: Planning for improved versions of IN/NOT IN |
Date: | 2002-11-28 02:31:37 |
Message-ID: | 053e01c29686$46aaadd0$6500a8c0@internal |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> The difficulty is that it's not clear how to choose one of these four
> ways, short of planning the *entire* query from scratch all four ways :-(.
> This seems pretty grim. Approaches #2 and #3 could be handled as local
> transformations of the WHERE clause, but we couldn't choose which to use
> very well if we don't yet know how many outer rows the WHERE clause will
> be executed for. Approach #1 is really planning a completely different
> query --- one with an extra FROM-item --- and there's not going to be
> all that much commonality in the computations, unless we restrict where
> the added FROM-item can be joined to the others, which'd more or less
> defeat the purpose.
What about in the case of a scalar subquery eg. SELECT x IN
(1,2,3,4,54,56,6), when there maybe hundreds of scalars?
Chris
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Marc G. Fournier | 2002-11-28 02:36:14 | v7.3 Packaged ... |
Previous Message | David Walker | 2002-11-28 00:34:12 | Re: Boolean casting in 7.3 -> changed? |