From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Qingqing Zhou <zhouqq@cs.toronto.edu>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: edmonds42@bellsouth.net
Subject: Re: performance of implicit join vs. explicit conditions on inet queries?
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 09:24:10 -0500
Message-ID: <29864.1130768650@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <dk4p9d$30q4$1@news.hub.org>
References: <20051024035809.GA18261@edmonds.ath.cx>
<dk4p9d$30q4$1@news.hub.org>
"Qingqing Zhou" <zhouqq@cs.toronto.edu> writes:
> "Robert Edmonds" <edmonds42@bellsouth.net> wrote
>> Instead of specifying explicit address ranges in the query, I'd like
>> to store the ranges in a table:
> Good illustration. I guess we have a problem of the historgram statistical
> information.
No, that's completely irrelevant to his problem. The reason we can't do
this is that the transformation from "x << const" to a range check on x
is a plan-time transformation; there's no mechanism in place to do it
at runtime. This is not easy to fix, because the mechanism that's doing
it is primarily intended for LIKE/regex index optimization, and in that
case a runtime pattern might well not be optimizable at all.
regards, tom lane
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, zhouqq@cs.toronto.edu, edmonds42@bellsouth.net
Subject: Re: performance of implicit join vs. explicit conditions on inet queries?
In-Reply-To: <29864.1130768650@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox