Re: Okay to tighten definition of oprcanhash? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Okay to tighten definition of oprcanhash?
Date
Msg-id 25118.1040420919@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Okay to tighten definition of oprcanhash?  (Greg Stark <gsstark@mit.edu>)
List pgsql-hackers
Greg Stark <gsstark@mit.edu> writes:
> I'm not sure but I think the way Oracle optimizes subselects is by
> transforming them into the equivalent join.

The point here is that there is no exactly equivalent join operation.

(Of course, given Oracle's known lack of standards-compliance on NULL
semantics, I wouldn't be overly surprised if they've misimplemented IN
in a way that doesn't preserve the spec's semantics ...)

It does get a lot simpler when the IN appears as a top-level WHERE
clause, because *in that context* you can ignore the difference between
FALSE and UNKNOWN results from IN.  I have some other plans for
implementing IN in a join-like fashion in that special case.  But what
I'm looking at right now is the general case ...
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Greg Stark
Date:
Subject: Re: Okay to tighten definition of oprcanhash?
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: Okay to tighten definition of oprcanhash?