From: | Don Baccus <dhogaza(at)pacifier(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "Wenjin Zheng" <wenjin(dot)zheng(at)lsbc(dot)com>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | RE: slow join on postgresql6.5 |
Date: | 2000-03-31 14:33:49 |
Message-ID: | 3.0.1.32.20000331063349.00f783f4@mail.pacifier.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
At 07:05 PM 3/31/00 +0900, Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: majordomo-owner(at)hub(dot)org [mailto:majordomo-owner(at)hub(dot)org]On Behalf
>> Of Don Baccus
>>
>> Whatever ... in this particular case - referential integrity
>> with MATCH <unspecified> and MATCH PARTIAL and multi-column
>> foreign keys - performance will likely drop spectacularly once the
>> leading column is NULL, while (say) with Oracle you'd expect much
>> less of a performance hit.
>>
>
>As for NULL,it seems possible to look up NULL keys in a btree index
>because NULL == NULL for btree indexes.
>I've wondered why PostgreSQL's planner/executor never looks up
>indexes for queries using 'IS NULL'.
Unfortunately for the RI MATCH PARTIAL case, NULL is a "wildcard".
This doesn't affect the validity of your observation in the general
case, though.
- Don Baccus, Portland OR <dhogaza(at)pacifier(dot)com>
Nature photos, on-line guides, Pacific Northwest
Rare Bird Alert Service and other goodies at
http://donb.photo.net.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Lamar Owen | 2000-03-31 14:36:30 | Re: pgAccess change |
Previous Message | Lamar Owen | 2000-03-31 14:30:44 | Re: Regress test updates: status report |