On Sat, 2010-04-10 at 20:25 +0200, Yeb Havinga wrote:
> I was thinking of a case for instance for ranges a,b,c in relations
> A,B,C respectively, where a && b and b && c, but not a && c. Would the
> planner consider a join path of table A and C first, then that result
> with B. After looking in doxygen, it looks like having && defined
> without MERGES is what prevents this unwanted behaviour, since that
> prevents a,b and c to become members of the same equivalence class.
Interesting, I would have to make sure that didn't happen. Most likely
there would be a new property like "RANGEMERGES", it wouldn't reuse the
existing MERGES property.
> Sorry for the spam on the list.
Not at all, it's an interesting point.
Regards,Jeff Davis
