From: | Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone23(dot)bigpanda(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Tomasz Myrta <jasiek(at)klaster(dot)net>, Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com>, Ries van Twisk <ries(at)jongert(dot)nl>, <pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: To use a VIEW or not to use a View..... |
Date: | 2003-01-23 00:45:10 |
Message-ID: | 20030122164324.K4204-100000@megazone23.bigpanda.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-sql |
On Wed, 22 Jan 2003, Tom Lane wrote:
> Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone23(dot)bigpanda(dot)com> writes:
> > The filter is applied only to a. So, if you really wanted the
> > c.a=3 condition to be applied for whatever reason you're out of
> > luck.
>
> FWIW, CVS tip is brighter: the condition does propagate to both relations.
>
> Hash Join (cost=22.51..45.04 rows=1 width=8)
> Hash Cond: ("outer".a = "inner".a)
> -> Seq Scan on a (cost=0.00..22.50 rows=5 width=4)
> Filter: (a = 3)
> -> Hash (cost=22.50..22.50 rows=5 width=4)
> -> Seq Scan on c (cost=0.00..22.50 rows=5 width=4)
> Filter: (3 = a)
>
> The reason this is useful is that (a) fewer rows need to be joined,
> and (b) we may be able to make effective use of indexes on both tables.
Yeah. I was going to ask how hard you thought it would be to do for
this particular sort of case. I thought about the simple case of using
and realized it'd probably be reasonable in amount of work, but it seems
I don't have to think about it. :)
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Stephan Szabo | 2003-01-23 00:52:29 | Re: To use a VIEW or not to use a View..... |
Previous Message | Tomasz Myrta | 2003-01-22 21:54:19 | Re: To use a VIEW or not to use a View..... |