On Tue, 2008-09-02 at 13:41 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
> > On Tue, 2008-09-02 at 13:20 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> >> Simon Riggs wrote:
> >>> It turns out that a join like this
> >>>
> >>> select a.col2
> >>> from a left outer join b on a.col1 = b.col1
> >>> where b.col2 = 1;
> >>>
> >>> can be cheaper if we don't remove the join, when there is an index on
> >>> a.col1 and b.col2, because the presence of b allows the values returned
> >>> from b to be used for an index scan on a.
> >> Umm, you *can't* remove that join.
> >
> > Yes, you can. The presence or absence of rows in b is not important to
> > the result of the query because of the "left outer join".
> >
> > I spent nearly a whole day going down that deadend also.
>
> Oh. How does the query look like after removing the join, then?
Same answer, just slower. Removing the join makes the access to a into a
SeqScan, whereas it was a two-table index plan when both tables present.
The two table plan is added by the immediately preceding call add_... -
i.e. that plan is only added during join time not during planning of
base relations.
--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
