From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: updated join removal patch |
Date: | 2009-09-18 19:06:11 |
Message-ID: | 4752.1253300771@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 1:58 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>>> Mmm, I like that. Putting that bunch of hairy logic in a subroutine
>>> instead of repeating it in several places definitely seems better. I
>>> don't really like the name "clause_matches_join", though.
>> It was the first thing that came to mind ... got a better idea?
> clause_has_well_defined_sides()?
Nah ... they're "well defined" in any case, they might just not be what
we need for the current join. As an example,
(a.f1 + b.f2) = c.f3
would be usable if joining {A B} to {C}, but not when joining
{A} to {B C}.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Hannu Krosing | 2009-09-18 19:29:05 | Re: happy birthday Tom Lane ... |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-09-18 19:03:12 | Re: Join optimization for inheritance tables |