From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: inverse OR distributive law? |
Date: | 2005-09-15 03:04:04 |
Message-ID: | 9434.1126753444@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> * process_duplicate_ors
> * Given a list of exprs which are ORed together, try to apply
> * the inverse OR distributive law.
> Anybody enlighten what "inverse OR distributive law" is?
Well, it's defined right above that:
* The following code attempts to apply the inverse OR distributive law:
* ((A AND B) OR (A AND C)) => (A AND (B OR C))
* That is, locate OR clauses in which every subclause contains an
* identical term, and pull out the duplicated terms.
I'm not sure that "inverse OR distributive law" is standard terminology,
but I believe the implication in the other direction is usually called
the "OR distributive law". Anyone know of better terminology?
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-09-15 03:30:52 | Re: Per-table freeze limit proposal |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-09-15 02:42:36 | Re: Constraint Type Coercion issue? |