Re: performance of implicit join vs. explicit conditions on inet queries? - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: performance of implicit join vs. explicit conditions on inet queries?
Date
Msg-id 29864.1130768650@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: performance of implicit join vs. explicit conditions on inet queries?  ("Qingqing Zhou" <zhouqq@cs.toronto.edu>)
List pgsql-performance
"Qingqing Zhou" <zhouqq@cs.toronto.edu> writes:
> "Robert Edmonds" <edmonds42@bellsouth.net> wrote
>> Instead of specifying explicit address ranges in the query, I'd like
>> to store the ranges in a table:

> Good illustration. I guess we have a problem of the historgram statistical
> information.

No, that's completely irrelevant to his problem.  The reason we can't do
this is that the transformation from "x << const" to a range check on x
is a plan-time transformation; there's no mechanism in place to do it
at runtime.  This is not easy to fix, because the mechanism that's doing
it is primarily intended for LIKE/regex index optimization, and in that
case a runtime pattern might well not be optimizable at all.

            regards, tom lane

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: "Merlin Moncure"
Date:
Subject: Re: Best way to check for new data.
Next
From: Chris Mair
Date:
Subject: Re: SOLVED: insertion of bytea