From: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Marti Raudsepp <marti(at)juffo(dot)org> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Transforming IN (...) to ORs, volatility |
Date: | 2011-04-05 15:42:17 |
Message-ID: | 4D9B3859.8080708@enterprisedb.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 05.04.2011 13:19, Marti Raudsepp wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 14:24, Heikki Linnakangas
> <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>> We sometimes transform IN-clauses to a list of ORs:
>>
>> postgres=# explain SELECT * FROM foo WHERE a IN (b, c);
>> QUERY PLAN
>> Seq Scan on foo (cost=0.00..39.10 rows=19 width=12)
>> Filter: ((a = b) OR (a = c))
>>
>> But what if you replace "a" with a volatile function? It doesn't seem legal
>> to do that transformation in that case, but we do it:
>>
>> postgres=# explain SELECT * FROM foo WHERE (random()*2)::integer IN (b, c);
>> QUERY PLAN
>>
>> Seq Scan on foo (cost=0.00..68.20 rows=19 width=12)
>> Filter: ((((random() * 2::double precision))::integer = b) OR (((random()
>> * 2::double precision))::integer = c))
>
> Is there a similar problem with the BETWEEN clause transformation into
> AND expressions?
>
> marti=> explain verbose select random() between 0.25 and 0.75;
> Result (cost=0.00..0.02 rows=1 width=0)
> Output: ((random()>= 0.25::double precision) AND (random()<=
> 0.75::double precision))
Yes, good point.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Merlin Moncure | 2011-04-05 15:59:13 | Re: Set hint bits upon eviction from BufMgr |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2011-04-05 15:25:19 | Re: Re: synchronous_commit and synchronous_replication Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Efficient transaction-controlled synchronous replication. |