Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.184]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D76C12E003E for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2008 05:44:00 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.184]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 92643-08 for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2008 05:43:51 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: delayed 00:06:45.142704 by SQLgrey-1.7.5 Received: from wr-out-0506.google.com (wr-out-0506.google.com [64.233.184.228]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BC0E2E003D for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2008 05:43:55 -0400 (AST) Received: by wr-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id 71so4179522wri.5 for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2008 01:43:55 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=ki9Q1P1MqmbORahKAeB72LfjnuV1G8iE/0rRB1embjs=; b=YjO9in+6JsgVaDyFkKXBTWY9Ph7J1gV9gMF3CSbAJmHMJMTXqJ5pXnmaUUdNe29/h9VyV+1qPS1pdyPjc70GyJ0RYKN3F1VKsYJCocjaEvJ1OwwWVzJB+Vks+4odMo4riOM9aQnW59ALEnsbSJGMrSccajxZrIf7E92pwN5UQog= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=MkiT/GPUvgdX2/71PA1GD46P5DcpqhqlwkZF2ZiFZaqA6mq3wGj1dziEm0SjkpOO9++5UoonYaRQk/g+gJjYnPCgceXHCs13hkQyhOaYWrNNPVodYHA4Dj01oXKkyJ+42CP0f2NVw0MtlkI1HjVvF5RWxXlMofkXugmQ754XrGU= Received: by 10.141.20.7 with SMTP id x7mr4281445rvi.82.1204105028542; Wed, 27 Feb 2008 01:37:08 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.141.128.7 with HTTP; Wed, 27 Feb 2008 01:37:08 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <684362e10802270137r5e2c6108i9b0971410bc4a2b5@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 15:37:08 +0600 From: "Markus Bertheau" To: "Bart Degryse" Subject: Re: Function returns error (view) Cc: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org In-Reply-To: <47C53892.A3DD.0030.0@indicator.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <6a5e3a6f0802260832k9c1375ap632f8adad0740fa2@mail.gmail.com> <684362e10802270109y7d63d656jbdff332274a31456@mail.gmail.com> <47C53892.A3DD.0030.0@indicator.be> X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200802/219 X-Sequence-Number: 30310 2008/2/27, Bart Degryse : > > > For rather "simple" queries like this one PostgreSQL indeed seems to be > quite smart. > I have quite a lot of statements where it does make a difference though > (PostgreSQL 8.2.4). I would rather find a situation where an explicit join is planned significantly different than an equivalent IN to be a bug in PostgreSQL: Markus -- Markus Bertheau Blog: http://www.bluetwanger.de/blog/