| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Rod Taylor <rod(dot)taylor(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: NOT IN Doesn't use Anti Joins? |
| Date: | 2009-12-17 14:35:39 |
| Message-ID: | 603c8f070912170635m2c84212alffeea00ad35b26f6@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 9:02 AM, Rod Taylor <rod(dot)taylor(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Is there a reason why the NOT IN plan could not use Anti-Joins when
> the column being compared against is guaranteed to be NOT NULL? Too
> much planner overhead to determine nullness of the column?
I doubt it. I think it's just a question of round tuits. I think Tom
hasn't felt it worth the effort since you can work around it by
rewriting the query, and nobody else has bothered to work up a patch.
If you feel like working on it, I think it would be a nice
improvement.
...Robert
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-12-17 14:43:57 | Re: Range types |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2009-12-17 14:16:59 | Re: Largeobject Access Controls (r2460) |