Tom Lane wrote: > Comparing the behavior of this to my patch for HEAD, I am coming to the > conclusion that this is actually a *better* planning method than > removing the redundant join conditions, even when they're truly > rendundant! The reason emerges as soon as you look at cases involving > more than a single join. If we strip the join condition from just one > of the joins, then we find that the planner insists on doing that join > last, whether it's a good idea or not, because clauseful joins are > always preferred to clauseless joins in the join search logic.
Would it be a good idea to keep removing redundant clauses and rethink the preference for clauseful joins, going forward? -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
