On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 2:30 PM, Jeff Davis <pg...@j-davis.com> wrote: > On Sat, 2010-04-10 at 20:25 +0200, Yeb Havinga wrote: >> I was thinking of a case for instance for ranges a,b,c in relations >> A,B,C respectively, where a && b and b && c, but not a && c. Would the >> planner consider a join path of table A and C first, then that result >> with B. After looking in doxygen, it looks like having && defined >> without MERGES is what prevents this unwanted behaviour, since that >> prevents a,b and c to become members of the same equivalence class. > > Interesting, I would have to make sure that didn't happen. Most likely > there would be a new property like "RANGEMERGES", it wouldn't reuse the > existing MERGES property. > >> Sorry for the spam on the list. > > Not at all, it's an interesting point.
Yeah... I agree. ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
