| From: | Dennis Haney <davh(at)diku(dot)dk> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: IN joining |
| Date: | 2004-03-05 21:32:03 |
| Message-ID: | 4048F1D3.20405@diku.dk |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
>Dennis Haney <davh(at)diku(dot)dk> writes:
>
>
>>Consider this example:
>>SELECT * FROM a,b WHERE a.id = b.id AND (a.id) IN (SELECT c.id FROM c)
>>the possible execution trees are {{a,b}, {c}}, {{a,c},{b}} and the code
>>seems to also permit {{b,c},{a}}.
>>
>>
>
>No, it does not --- as you say, that would give wrong answers. That
>case is eliminated by the tests following this comment:
>
> * JOIN_IN technique will work if outerrel includes LHS and
> * innerrel is exactly RHS; conversely JOIN_REVERSE_IN handles
> * RHS/LHS.
> *
> * JOIN_UNIQUE_OUTER will work if outerrel is exactly RHS;
> * conversely JOIN_UNIQUE_INNER will work if innerrel is
> * exactly RHS.
>
>Joining {b,c} to {a} does not meet any of those four allowed cases.
>
>
Exactly my point... So why ever bother creating the {b,c} node which is
legal by the above definition?
--
Dennis
use Inline C => q{void p(char*g){
printf("Just Another %s Hacker\n",g);}};p("Perl");
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2004-03-05 21:48:58 | Re: [HACKERS] Another crack at doing a Win32 |
| Previous Message | Andrew Sullivan | 2004-03-05 21:08:26 | Re: 7.4.2 release notes |