From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Chris Mayfield <cmayfiel(at)cs(dot)purdue(dot)edu> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Merge Joins and Views |
Date: | 2008-03-29 16:28:13 |
Message-ID: | 8989.1206808093@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Chris Mayfield <cmayfiel(at)cs(dot)purdue(dot)edu> writes:
>>> So the long and the short of it is that the COALESCE acts as an
>>> optimization fence in the presence of outer joins. We've seen this
>>> before and there are some rough ideas about fixing it.
> You may already have this rough idea somewhere, but it seems to me that
> the view could be flattened into the upper query as long as the join
> predicates don't depend on coalesced columns. In the examples I sent,
> even if the COALESCE is evaluated at the very end of the query, the
> merge join (on the id columns) would still be correct.
But the output would not be: the join column would fail to go to null
when it was supposed to. See the example that made us put in that
restriction in the first place:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-bugs/2001-04/msg00223.php
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Shane Ambler | 2008-03-29 16:36:05 | Re: GSoC Proposal: PL/Mono |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-03-29 16:15:20 | Re: Merge Joins and Views |