NULL is still a value that may be paired with a NULL in a.a The only optimization I could see is if the a.a column has NOT NULL defined while b.b does not have NOT NULL defined.
Not sure if it is all that common. Curious what if you put b.b IS NOT NULL in the WHERE statement? ----------------- Phillip Couto > On Jan 19, 2017, at 05:08, Clailson <clailson....@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > Is there something in the roadmap to optimize the inner join? > > I've this situation above. Table b has 400 rows with null in the column b. > > explain analyze select * from a inner join b on (b.b = a.a); > "Merge Join (cost=0.55..65.30 rows=599 width=16) (actual time=0.030..1.173 > rows=599 loops=1)" > " Merge Cond: (a.a = b.b)" > " -> Index Scan using a_pkey on a (cost=0.28..35.27 rows=1000 width=8) > (actual time=0.014..0.364 rows=1000 loops=1)" > " -> Index Scan using in01 on b (cost=0.28..33.27 rows=1000 width=8) > (actual time=0.012..0.249 rows=600 loops=1)" > "Total runtime: 1.248 ms" > > My question is: Why the planner isn't removing the null rows during the scan > of table b? > -- > Clailson Soares DinÃzio de Almeida
