Re: *very* inefficient choice made by the planner (regarding - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Jean-Luc Lachance
Subject Re: *very* inefficient choice made by the planner (regarding
Date
Msg-id 40C892BA.8080704@sympatico.ca
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: *very* inefficient choice made by the planner (regarding  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: *very* inefficient choice made by the planner (regarding
List pgsql-performance
I agree, but it should be a simple rewrite. No?

x IS NULL/IS NOT NULL AND/OR NOT EXISTS


Tom Lane wrote:

> Jean-Luc Lachance <jllachan@sympatico.ca> writes:
>
>>If the two statments are functionally equivalent, why can't PG rewrite
>>the "NOT IN" version into the more efficient "NOT EXISTS"?
>
>
> They're not equivalent.  In particular, the behavior in the presence of
> NULLs is quite different.
>
>             regards, tom lane
>


pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Vivek Khera
Date:
Subject: Re: Database Server Tuning
Next
From: Stephan Szabo
Date:
Subject: Re: *very* inefficient choice made by the planner (regarding