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 two clauses
I wrote:
Arjen van der Meijden [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
SELECT COUNT(*) FROM
data_main AS dm,
postcodes AS p
WHERE dm.range BETWEEN p.range_from AND p.range_till
Planner error ... because it doesn't have any good way to estimate the
number of matching rows, it thinks that way is a bit
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.z
In
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? It seems
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
