Received: from localhost.localdomain (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8])
	by localhost (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F1334772B5
	for <pgsql-sql@postgresql.org>; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 12:04:22 -0400 (EDT)
Mailbox-Line: From rk73@sea.plala.or.jp  Thu Jun 27 12:04:22 2002
Received: from mps2.plala.or.jp (mpsb-nat02.plala.or.jp [202.212.114.145])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8371847717C
	for <pgsql-sql@postgresql.org>; Thu, 27 Jun 2002 11:03:27 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from vip1600 ([218.47.117.7]) by mps2.plala.or.jp with ESMTP
	id <20020627150330.JSVC25092.mps2.plala.or.jp@vip1600>;
	Fri, 28 Jun 2002 00:03:30 +0900
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 00:04:07 +0900
From: Masaru Sugawara <rk73@sea.plala.or.jp>
To: Alvar Freude <alvar@a-blast.org>
Subject: Re: 2 Selects 1 is faster, why?
Cc: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
In-Reply-To: <1371510000.1025105687@gnarzelwicht.delirium-arts.de>
References: <afag3c$kce$1@news.hub.org>
	<1371510000.1025105687@gnarzelwicht.delirium-arts.de>
Errors-To: rk73@sea.plala.or.jp
Message-Id: <20020627234531.7ECB.RK73@sea.plala.or.jp>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Becky! ver. 2.00.11
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.1 required=5.0
	tests=IN_REP_TO,SUBJ_ENDS_IN_Q_MARK,FROM_ENDS_IN_NUMS
	version=2.30
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Archive-Number: 200206/365
X-Sequence-Number: 8330

On Wed, 26 Jun 2002 17:34:47 +0200
Alvar Freude <alvar@a-blast.org> wrote:


> Hi,
> 
> -- Eric <emayo@pozicom.net> wrote:
> 
> > If I perform the following 2 selects, the first one is EXTREMELY slow
> > where the 2nd one is very fast.
> 
> [...] 
> 
> > Why would 2 be so much faster?  I have ran the EXPLAIN on this and index
> > scans are being used.
> 
> I guess, the first query has to search for all ol.orderid the equivalent
> o.orderid; the second variant only has to search for '1234' in each
> ?.orderid, which is much faster.


 You are right. And this type of optimising are not yet implemented.
 Tom said it in the prior discussions. 



Regards,
Masaru Sugawara