Re: performance of implicit join vs. explicit conditions on inet queries?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Qingqing Zhou" <zhouqq(at)cs(dot)toronto(dot)edu>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org, edmonds42(at)bellsouth(dot)net
Subject: Re: performance of implicit join vs. explicit conditions on inet queries?
Date: 2005-10-31 14:24:10
Message-ID: 29864.1130768650@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

"Qingqing Zhou" <zhouqq(at)cs(dot)toronto(dot)edu> writes:
> "Robert Edmonds" <edmonds42(at)bellsouth(dot)net> wrote
>> Instead of specifying explicit address ranges in the query, I'd like
>> to store the ranges in a table:

> Good illustration. I guess we have a problem of the historgram statistical
> information.

No, that's completely irrelevant to his problem. The reason we can't do
this is that the transformation from "x << const" to a range check on x
is a plan-time transformation; there's no mechanism in place to do it
at runtime. This is not easy to fix, because the mechanism that's doing
it is primarily intended for LIKE/regex index optimization, and in that
case a runtime pattern might well not be optimizable at all.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Chris Mair 2005-10-31 14:29:17 Re: SOLVED: insertion of bytea
Previous Message Merlin Moncure 2005-10-31 13:47:29 Re: Best way to check for new data.