On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 06:35:10PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Jim C. Nasby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 06:09:37PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Can anyone suggest a more general rule? Do we need for example to
> >> consider whether the relation membership is the same in t
John A Meinel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Actually, I think he was saying do a nested loop, and for each item in
> the nested loop, re-evaluate if an index or a sequential scan is more
> efficient.
> I don't think postgres re-plans once it has started, though you could
> test this in a plpgsql f
Tom Lane wrote:
"Jim C. Nasby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 06:09:37PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Can anyone suggest a more general rule? Do we need for example to
consider whether the relation membership is the same in two clauses
that might be opposite sides of a range restric
"Jim C. Nasby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 06:09:37PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Can anyone suggest a more general rule? Do we need for example to
>> consider whether the relation membership is the same in two clauses
>> that might be opposite sides of a range restriction?
On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 06:09:37PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Can anyone suggest a more general rule? Do we need for example to
> consider whether the relation membership is the same in two clauses
> that might be opposite sides of a range restriction? It seems like
>
> a.x > b.y AND a.x < b
