From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
Cc: Stephan Szabo <sszabo@megazone23.bigpanda.com>
Cc: Nicolas Fertig <nfertig@swissnow.ch>
Cc: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: OUTER JOIN with filter
Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2003 14:17:19 -0500
Message-ID: <15484.1046719039@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200303031030.11785.josh@agliodbs.com>
References: <20030301232815.Q24208-100000@megazone23.bigpanda.com>
<200303031030.11785.josh@agliodbs.com>
Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> writes:
> For that matter, in a few queries I've found that it pays to force the
> planner's hand by repeating some of the clauses in the WHERE clause in the
> JOIN as well, as:
> SELECT a.x, b.y, c.z
> FROM a JOIN b ON (a.id = b.a_id AND b.type = 'm')
> LEFT OUTER JOIN c ON (b.id = c.b_id)
> WHERE b.type = 'm'
> The logic is fine. The issue comes where the outer joined table is several
> times larger than the main queried table. The planner should recognize the
> possibility of filtering the records in the joined table before joining in
> order to minimize the join operation.
AFAIR, it's always done that; certainly the above query looks quite
redundant to me. Note though that pushing down the WHERE clause is only
legal because b is on the outer side of the join.
A comparable query in the 7.3 regression database is
regression=# explain select * from
regression-# tenk1 a join tenk1 b on (a.unique1 = b.unique1)
regression-# left join tenk1 c on (b.unique2 = c.unique2)
regression-# where b.thousand = 999;
QUERY PLAN
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nested Loop (cost=0.00..572.49 rows=10 width=732)
-> Nested Loop (cost=0.00..542.55 rows=10 width=488)
-> Seq Scan on tenk1 b (cost=0.00..483.00 rows=10 width=244)
Filter: (thousand = 999)
-> Index Scan using tenk1_unique1 on tenk1 a (cost=0.00..6.01 rows=1 width=244)
Index Cond: (a.unique1 = "outer".unique1)
-> Index Scan using tenk1_unique2 on tenk1 c (cost=0.00..3.01 rows=1 width=244)
Index Cond: ("outer".unique2 = c.unique2)
(8 rows)
You can see that the condition on b.thousand does get pushed down to the
bottom scan. (There's no index on b.thousand, so we don't get an
indexscan --- but we would if there were an index...)
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-sql@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, josh@agliodbs.com, sszabo@megazone23.bigpanda.com, nfertig@swissnow.ch
Subject: Re: OUTER JOIN with filter
In-Reply-To: <15484.1046719039@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