DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com;
	h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;
	b=p309+S4n85NyJv/5prd4w9p2uFVy+0kQLIBfPnH3fRjzVKqPs3cmPKjEpQNViT1pgolaDr0P/6OzJw8Sr8tbALqDA2+6Aj90mVnEyyvDgQ8g5U5/sxtk0+yX+iIvzfZZw/dVkCRU++Js+5O8Lp6sL8vrHCnLkUQ1+nSjRDGqBvg=
Message-ID: <3d104d6f05081509345067d83b@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 11:34:32 -0500
From: Dario Bahena Tapia <dario.mx@gmail.com>
To: Stephan Szabo <sszabo@megazone.bigpanda.com>
Subject: Re: Parentheses in FROM clause and evaluation order.
Cc: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
In-Reply-To: <20050815065906.K33261@megazone.bigpanda.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <200508110042.j7B0g1TZ015835@panselmo.fciencias.unam.mx>
	<20050815065906.K33261@megazone.bigpanda.com>

Hi,

The final result seems to be the same, I just was curious about the
standard behavior. Does the SQl says something about this execution
order?

Thanks for your response.

salu2
dario estepario ...


2005/8/15, Stephan Szabo <sszabo@megazone.bigpanda.com>:
> On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 dario.mx@gmail.com wrote:
>=20
> > I thought that the parenthesis in the table expression
> > (FROM clause), could be used to indicate the desired
> > evaluation order. But, I tried with a couple of samples
> > and the explain command returned me the same result; no matter
> > what parentheses association I used. I am using only INNER JOINs.
> >
> > In fact, I thought that the whole table expression was gonna be
> > evaluated before the WHERE filter. Does the stantard says something
> > about this evaluation order when the parentheses are present?
> > Does PostgreSQL implements this behavior?
>=20
> AFAIK we only try to provide final results that are equivalent to
> following the steps in order, so it'll reorder joins or push clauses
> around as long as it thinks the semantics of the query won't change. For
> example, actually doing unconstrainted joins before where clauses is a
> very bad plan if you've got a FROM table1, table2, table3 style query. If
> you're seeing a place where the reorder affects the query results as
> opposed to the query plan, that's probably a bug, can you give more
> information?
>