> Mark kirkwood <markir@slingshot.co.nz> writes:
> > Note that 'f1' = '2000-01-26' corrosponds to 'd0key' = 270 in the table
> > 'dim0';
>
> What do you mean by "corresponds to"? Is there a one-to-one mapping
> between distinct values of fact0.d0key and distinct values of dim0.f1?
> Or do you just mean that the values play corresponding roles in these
> two queries?
>
Sorry Tom ... clearly I didnt explain this very well...
But if you look at the rows in dim0 (see bottom of the previous mail) the above
d0key and f1 are in the same row of 'dim0' - I neglected to mention that 'f1'
is unique and 'd0key' is the primary key for 'dim0', so yes there is a 1-1
mapping between 'd0key' and 'f1' in 'dim0. Therefore there is also a 1-1
mapping between distinct 'd0key' in 'fact0' and 'f1' in 'dim0'.
so to get the rows in 'fact0', 'dim0' where dim0.f1 = '2000-01-26' is the same
as getting the rows in fact0, dim0 where dim0.d0key = 270.
Given that the join is dim0.d0key = fact0.d0key then this is equivalent to
fact0.d0key = 270.
Of course you are correct about a date column on dim0 not having the same
selectivity as an int on fact0... but it seems to me ( incorrectly ? ) that in
order in access fact0 from the resulting dim0 rows for f1, the optimizer must
use the set of d0key(s) extracted from dim0 and go to fact0 with then. This was
exactly what the unjoined query was doing - which gets us back to my original
question again ( I think ).
On the other points : cpu_tuple_cost and distribution - These are completely
correct, I will use another similar table that has uniformly distributed data -
this should mean no fiddling about with cpu_tuple_cost is required.
In addition, to clarify the issue furthur I am considering removing f1 from the
example, and using d0key in both queries, to see what happens then.
Thanks for your patience on this.
regards
Mark