X-Original-To: pgsql-sql-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (neptune.hub.org [200.46.204.2]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BE7AD1B479 for ; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 23:05:29 +0000 (GMT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (neptune.hub.org [200.46.204.2]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 17210-02 for ; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 19:05:01 -0400 (AST) Received: from serwer.skawsoft.com.pl (skawina.eu.org [80.48.213.66]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5D6FD1B436 for ; Fri, 28 Nov 2003 19:04:58 -0400 (AST) Received: from klaster.net (core-1.citynet.pl [80.48.135.69]) by serwer.skawsoft.com.pl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BB452B3D5; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 00:04:58 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3FC7D4AA.80900@klaster.net> Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2003 00:05:14 +0100 From: Tomasz Myrta User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win 9x 4.90; pl-PL; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007 X-Accept-Language: pl, en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tom Lane Cc: Lista dyskusyjna pgsql-sql Subject: Re: explicit joins wrong planning References: <3FC63057.3080009@klaster.net> <29784.1070047126@sss.pgh.pa.us> <3FC7A565.4000104@klaster.net> <296.1070049123@sss.pgh.pa.us> <3FC7AC6F.7080603@klaster.net> <1517.1070056638@sss.pgh.pa.us> In-Reply-To: <1517.1070056638@sss.pgh.pa.us> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-2; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at postgresql.org X-Archive-Number: 200311/335 X-Sequence-Number: 16150 Dnia 2003-11-28 22:57, U¿ytkownik Tom Lane napisa³: > Restructure planning of nestloop inner indexscans so that the set > of usable joinclauses is determined accurately for each join. > Formerly, the code only considered joinclauses that used all of the > rels from the outer side of the join; thus for example FROM (a > CROSS JOIN b) JOIN c ON (c.f1 = a.x AND c.f2 = b.y) could not > exploit a two-column index on c(f1,f2), since neither of the qual > clauses would be in the joininfo list it looked in. The new code > does this correctly, and also is able to eliminate redundant > clauses, thus fixing the problem noted 24-Oct-02 by Hans-Jürgen > Schönig. Yes, this is a description of my problem. Thanks a lot. Regards, Tomasz Myrta