| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, torikoshia <torikoshia(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: First draft of PG 17 release notes |
| Date: | 2024-05-28 04:20:21 |
| Message-ID: | ZlVbhYZmxznxczN_@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, May 28, 2024 at 02:44:28PM +1200, David Rowley wrote:
> On Sun, 26 May 2024 at 15:57, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> > Agreed. I changed it to:
> >
> > Allow btree indexes to more efficiently find a set of values, such as
> > those supplied by IN subqueries
> >
> > Is that good?
>
> I think this needs further adjustment. An "IN subquery" is an IN
> clause which contains a subquery. As far as I understand it,
> 5bf748b86 does nothing to improve those. It's there to improve IN with
> a set of values such as IN(1,2,3).
>
> Maybe "IN subqueries" can be replaced with "an SQL IN clause".
Okay, I went with:
Allow btree indexes to more efficiently find a set of values,
such as those supplied by IN clauses using constants (Peter Geoghegan,
Matthias van de Meent)
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> https://momjian.us
EDB https://enterprisedb.com
Only you can decide what is important to you.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pradeep Kumar | 2024-05-28 05:37:08 | Need clarification on compilation errors in PG 16.2 |
| Previous Message | David Rowley | 2024-05-28 02:44:28 | Re: First draft of PG 17 release notes |