Re: JOIN performance - Mailing list pgsql-sql

Ahh, that explains why a "plain" JOIN (which doesn't do what I need) gave 
much better performance than the LEFT JOIN.

I could ask why a CASE statement is always non-nullable, but I don't think 
the answer would help be solve my problem. <grin>  I suppose it's that even 
though my particular CASE statement has WHEN/ELSE values that come from the 
nullable side of the JOIN, in general that's not true ...

Okay, now for my big question:  I searched high and low for a function that 
would return the minimum of two dates, and found none.  Now you come up 
with "date_smaller", which works fine (as does "date_larger"), but where 
are those documented?  More importantly, where are other functions like 
them documented?

-- Dean

ps:  Who dreamt up the names "date_smaller" and "date_larger" ??? Much more 
intuitive are "min_date" and "max_date".

pps:  I realize that "date_smaller" isn't exactly equivalent to my CASE 
statement;  a NULL value for one of the CASE operands causes the result of 
the ELSE clause to be returned, whereas "date_smaller" just returns NULL in 
that case.  In my data, that's significant.  I suppose that COALESCE has 
the same problem as CASE ...

Tom Lane wrote on 2004-09-20 17:54:
>"Dean Gibson (DB Administrator)" <postgresql3@ultimeth.com> writes:
>Question:  Why do the last two column definitions in the second VIEW 
>change the scan on _LicHD from indexed to sequential ??
>
>It's the CASE that's getting you.  The poor plan is basically because the 
>sub-view isn't getting "flattened" into the upper query, and so it's not 
>possible to choose a plan for it that's dependent on the upper query 
>context.  And the reason it's not getting flattened is that subselects 
>that are on the nullable side of an outer join can't be flattened unless 
>they have nullable targetlists --- otherwise the results might not go to 
>NULL when they are supposed to.  A CASE construct is always going to be 
>treated as non-nullable.
>
>Fixing this properly is a research project, and I haven't thought of any 
>quick-and-dirty hacks that aren't too ugly to consider :-(
>
>In the meantime, you could easily replace that CASE construct with a min() 
>function that's declared strict.  I think date_smaller would do nicely, 
>assuming the columns are actually of type date.