From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
Cc: | Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone23(dot)bigpanda(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: index scan with index cond on first column doesn't recognize sort order of second column |
Date: | 2003-02-14 04:45:29 |
Message-ID: | 4169.1045197929@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> writes:
> Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>> Actually you are barking up the wrong tree entirely; I'm pretty certain
>> that truncate_useless_pathkeys *doesn't* remove this pathkey, because it
>> should notice that it is relevant to the mergejoin condition.
> No, truncate_useless_pathkeys actually returns NULL.
Mmm, you're right. It would accept the second pathkey if it got to
it --- but it doesn't, because the first pathkey (col1) isn't useful
for any merge condition.
Still, truncate_useless_pathkeys isn't the place to be dealing with this
issue. It's not in a position to generate multiple interpretations of
the same path, which is what we are really after here.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Nicolas Boretos | 2003-02-14 07:36:53 | Re: pgtcl way of specifying a user |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-02-14 04:32:42 | Re: index scan with index cond on first column doesn't recognize sort order of second column |