Re: [PERFORM] temporary indexes - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Jim C. Nasby
Subject Re: [PERFORM] temporary indexes
Date
Msg-id 20060228210232.GW82012@pervasive.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [PERFORM] temporary indexes  ("Kevin Grittner" <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>)
Responses Re: [PERFORM] temporary indexes
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 11:36:28AM -0600, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> <digression>
> I'm all for that.  So far, we've been going after the low-hanging fruit
> in our use of PostgreSQL.  When we get to the main applications, we're
> going to be dealing with a lot more in the way of EXISTS clauses.  The
> product we're moving from usually optimized an IN test the same as the
> logically equivalent EXISTS test, and where a difference existed, it
> almost always did better with the EXISTS -- so we encouraged application
> programmers to use that form.  Also, EXISTS works in situations where
> you need to compare on multiple columns, so it is useful in many
> situations where EXISTS or MIN/MAX techniques just don't work.
> </digression>

Maybe it's just the way my twisted mind thinks, but I generally prefer
using a JOIN when possible...
--
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant      jnasby@pervasive.com
Pervasive Software      http://pervasive.com    work: 512-231-6117
vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf       cell: 512-569-9461

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: character encoding in StartupMessage
Next
From: "Kevin Grittner"
Date:
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] temporary indexes