From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Robert J(dot) Sanford, Jr(dot)" <rsanford(at)nolimitsystems(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: optimizing queries and indexes... |
Date: | 2001-09-16 04:34:15 |
Message-ID: | 16540.1000614855@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-sql |
[ Sorry for slow response, I've been out of town ]
"Robert J. Sanford, Jr." <rsanford(at)nolimitsystems(dot)com> writes:
> [ some questions already ably answered by Josh and Stephan ]
I just wanted to throw in one more tidbit:
> for example, one thing that one of my friends said is:
> select X
> from big_table
> ,little_table
> Generally speaking, Oracle optimizes better
> when the smaller/reducing tables are on the
> bottom and the larger tables are on the top.
> I believe SQLServer likes them in the opposite
> direction.
Postgres absolutely does not care: the optimizer will always consider
both A-join-B and B-join-A orders for every join it has to do. As
Stephan and Josh noted, you can constrain the join pairs the optimizer
will consider if you use explicit-JOIN syntax --- but each pair will be
considered in both directions.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kovacs Baldvin | 2001-09-16 14:14:27 | Intentional, or bug? |
Previous Message | Hans-Juergen Schoenig | 2001-09-15 08:56:57 | Re: How to Get Timestamp From SECONDS? |