From: | "Igor Neyman" <ineyman(at)perceptron(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Michael Graham" <mgraham(at)bloxx(dot)com>, <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Rearranging simple where clauses |
Date: | 2011-05-05 13:42:03 |
Message-ID: | F4C27E77F7A33E4CA98C19A9DC6722A2077A9583@EXCHANGE.corp.perceptron.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Graham [mailto:mgraham(at)bloxx(dot)com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2011 11:59 AM
To: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Rearranging simple where clauses
On Wed, 2011-05-04 at 11:49 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Well, you failed to show us any concrete examples of the cases you
> were looking at, but no I don't think the planner necessarily likes
> "all the constants on one side". Most likely the win cases are where
> one side of a WHERE-condition operator exactly matches an index, so
> you'd need to be looking for places where rearrangement could make
> that happen.
The reason I never showed you any was because I don't have any I was
just curious. But yeah making one side match an index exactly is
probably the biggest win.
<I.N.
I think, it'll be probably the "only" win, not the "biggest" - sometimes big, sometimes small.
But, what if there are more than one index based on the column in question? - Which one optimizer is supposed to satisfy by rearranging where clause?
Regards,
Igor Neyman
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Scott Ribe | 2011-05-05 14:04:39 | Re: SSDD reliability |
Previous Message | Chris Curvey | 2011-05-05 13:23:57 | Re: postgres segfaulting on pg_restore |