On Sunday 17 August 2003 16:39, Alexander M. Pravking wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 17, 2003 at 11:32:58AM +0100, Richard Huxton wrote:
> > Boiling the problem down, I've looked at a clause of the form:
> > a OR (b AND c)
> > which PG converts to:
> > (a OR b) AND (a OR c)
> > Is it an artefact of disp
On Sun, Aug 17, 2003 at 11:32:58AM +0100, Richard Huxton wrote:
> I just had a look at EXPLAIN ANALYSE output for an SQL function I'm trying to
> write. The WHERE clause wasn't too complex, but the explain output took up a
> dozen lines.
>
> Boiling the problem down, I've looked at a clause of t
Richard Huxton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Boiling the problem down, I've looked at a clause of the form:
> a OR (b AND c)
> which PG converts to:
> (a OR b) AND (a OR c)
> Is it an artefact of displaying the EXPLAIN, or is it actually
> processed that way? You could see how testing "a" twic
I just had a look at EXPLAIN ANALYSE output for an SQL function I'm trying to
write. The WHERE clause wasn't too complex, but the explain output took up a
dozen lines.
Boiling the problem down, I've looked at a clause of the form:
a OR (b AND c)
which PG converts to:
(a OR b) AND (a OR c)
N
