"Atul Deopujari" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hi, > Tom Lane wrote: >> That's the least of the problems. We really ought to convert such cases >> into an IN (VALUES(...)) type of query, since often repeated indexscans >> aren't the best implementation. >> > I thought of giving this a shot and while I was working on it, it > occurred to me that we need to decide on a threshold value of the IN > list size above which such transformation should take place.
I see no good reason to suppose that there is/should be a constant threshold --- most likely it depends on size of table, availability of indexes, etc. Having the planner try it both ways and compare costs would be best. regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate