From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: LATERAL |
Date: | 2009-10-18 20:05:04 |
Message-ID: | 603c8f070910181305u3167836am4fa0190cff30a200@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 3:57 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> You could probably convince me that a merge join is not going to be
>> too useful (how often can you want a merge join on the inner side of a
>> nested loop?
>
> Why not? As Andrew pointed out, what we're really trying to accomplish
> here is consider sub-join plans that are parameterized by a value
> obtained from an outer relation. I think we shouldn't artificially
> limit what we consider.
>
> But anyway I think we're on the same page here: what we ought to do is
> try implementing this scheme without any extra restrictions on what it
> considers, and see what the performance is like. We can try to limit
> what it considers if it turns out not to work well in the simplest
> form.
And then when we get done we can consider implementing $SUBJECT, which
is no longer what this thread is about at all. :-)
...Robert
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-10-18 20:07:50 | Re: Controlling changes in plpgsql variable resolution |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-10-18 19:57:51 | Re: LATERAL |