Re: extended operator classes vs. type interfaces
От | Jeff Davis |
---|---|
Тема | Re: extended operator classes vs. type interfaces |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1270924225.5250.14.camel@jdavis обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: extended operator classes vs. type interfaces (Yeb Havinga <yebhavinga@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: extended operator classes vs. type interfaces
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, 2010-04-10 at 20:25 +0200, Yeb Havinga wrote: > I was thinking of a case for instance for ranges a,b,c in relations > A,B,C respectively, where a && b and b && c, but not a && c. Would the > planner consider a join path of table A and C first, then that result > with B. After looking in doxygen, it looks like having && defined > without MERGES is what prevents this unwanted behaviour, since that > prevents a,b and c to become members of the same equivalence class. Interesting, I would have to make sure that didn't happen. Most likely there would be a new property like "RANGEMERGES", it wouldn't reuse the existing MERGES property. > Sorry for the spam on the list. Not at all, it's an interesting point. Regards,Jeff Davis
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: