> We don't attempt to make every possible inference (and I don't think
> you'd like it if we did).
I wasn't really asking you to, either ;))
Just trying to achieve a more in-depth understanding of the way things work.
> This example doesn't
> persuade me that it would be worth expending the cycl
Frank van Vugt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> When the 'article.id < 50' constraint is added, it follows that
> 'foo.article_id < 50' is a constraint as well. Why is this constraint not
> used to avoid the seqscan on package?
We don't attempt to make every possible inference (and I don't think
yo
> Obviously this is on toy tables
The query is simplified, yes. But the data in the tables is real, albeit
they're not that large.
> You're misinterpreting it.
I might very well be ;)
But I also get the feeling I didn't explain to you well enough what I meant...
> Without the group by, the pla
Frank van Vugt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If I ditch the group by, then this contraint does get pushed into the
> subselect :
You're misinterpreting it. Without the group by, the plan is a
candidate for nestloop-with-inner-index-scan; with the group by,
there's another step in the way.
Pushi
Hi all,
I noticed the following. Given two tables, just simply articles and their
packages:
article(id int)
package( id int, article_id int, amount)
When taking the minimum package for articles given some constraint on the
article table
select
article.
