Re: Posible planner improvement? - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Richard Huxton
Subject Re: Posible planner improvement?
Date
Msg-id 48341F1D.3090304@archonet.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Posible planner improvement?  ("Luke Lonergan" <LLonergan@greenplum.com>)
Responses Re: Posible planner improvement?
Re: Posible planner improvement?
Re: Posible planner improvement?
List pgsql-performance
Luke Lonergan wrote:
> The problem is that the implied join predicate is not being
> propagated.  This is definitely a planner deficiency.

IIRC only equality conditions are propagated and gt, lt, between aren't.
  I seem to remember that the argument given was that the cost of
checking for the ability to propagate was too high for the frequency
when it ocurred.

Of course, what was true for code and machines of 5 years ago might not
be so today.

--
   Richard Huxton
   Archonet Ltd

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: "Luke Lonergan"
Date:
Subject: Re: Posible planner improvement?
Next
From: "H. Hall"
Date:
Subject: "Big O" notation for postgres?