From: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Arjen van der Meijden <acmmailing(at)vulcanus(dot)its(dot)tudelft(dot)nl>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org, pgsql-performance(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Recognizing range constraints (was Re: Plan for relatively simple query seems to be very inefficient) |
Date: | 2005-04-06 22:25:36 |
Message-ID: | 20050406222536.GL93835@decibel.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance |
On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 06:09:37PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Can anyone suggest a more general rule? Do we need for example to
> consider whether the relation membership is the same in two clauses
> that might be opposite sides of a range restriction? It seems like
>
> a.x > b.y AND a.x < b.z
In a case like this, you could actually look at the data in b and see
what the average range size is. If you wanted to get really fancy, the
optimizer could decide how best to access a based on each row of b.
> probably can be treated as a range restriction on a.x for this purpose,
> but I'm much less sure that the same is true of
>
> a.x > b.y AND a.x < c.z
Well, this could end up being much trickier, since who knows how b and c
are related. Though thinking about it, although I threw out the
row-by-row analysis idea to be glib, that would actually work in this
case; you could take a look at what b and c look like each time 'through
the loop'.
--
Jim C. Nasby, Database Consultant decibel(at)decibel(dot)org
Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net Team #1828
Windows: "Where do you want to go today?"
Linux: "Where do you want to go tomorrow?"
FreeBSD: "Are you guys coming, or what?"
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-04-06 22:35:10 | Re: [HACKERS] Recognizing range constraints (was Re: Plan for relatively simple query seems to be very inefficient) |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-04-06 22:09:37 | Recognizing range constraints (was Re: Plan for relatively simple query seems to be very inefficient) |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-04-06 22:35:10 | Re: [HACKERS] Recognizing range constraints (was Re: Plan for relatively simple query seems to be very inefficient) |
Previous Message | Alex Turner | 2005-04-06 22:12:06 | Re: How to improve db performance with $7K? |