Re: Very specialised query
| От | Marc Mamin |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Very specialised query |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | C4DAC901169B624F933534A26ED7DF31010A50A4@JENMAIL01.ad.intershop.net обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Very specialised query (Matthew Wakeling <matthew@flymine.org>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Very specialised query
|
| Список | pgsql-performance |
>> WHERE (l2.start BETWEEN l1.start AND l1.end
>> OR
>> l1.start BETWEEN l2.start AND l2.end
>> )
>Yes, that's another way to calculate an overlap. However, it turns out to not be that fast.
>The problem is that OR there, which causes a bitmap index scan, as the leaf of a nested loop join,
>which can be rather slow.
Ok , than splitting these checks in 2 Queries with UNION is better.
But I often read that BETWEEN is faster than using 2 comparison operators.
Here I guess that a combined index on (start,end) makes sense:
..
WHERE l2.start BETWEEN l1.start AND l1.end
..
UNION
..
WHERE l1.start BETWEEN l2.start AND l2.end
..
The first clause being equivalent to
AND l1.start <= l2.end
AND l1.end >= l2.start
AND l1.start <= l2.start
I don't know how you have to deal the limit conditions...
Marc Mamin
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: