Re: PG choosing nested loop for set membership? - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: PG choosing nested loop for set membership?
Date
Msg-id 5190.1395852185@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: PG choosing nested loop for set membership?  (Brian Crowell <brian@fluggo.com>)
Responses Re: PG choosing nested loop for set membership?  (Brian Crowell <brian@fluggo.com>)
List pgsql-general
Brian Crowell <brian@fluggo.com> writes:
> Which says to me coalesce has a selectivity.

Well, the point is you're just getting a default selectivity estimate
for the "acc.rule_set_id = coalesce(...anything...)" condition.  The
planner is smarter about plain "x = y" join conditions: it looks up
the column stats for x and y and determines the probability of equality.

In principle I guess we could somehow merge the stats of y and z
when looking at a "coalesce(y, z)" expression, but I'm not sure
how that would work exactly.

            regards, tom lane


pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Steven Schlansker
Date:
Subject: Re: Trimming transaction logs after extended WAL archive failures
Next
From: Steven Schlansker
Date:
Subject: Re: Trimming transaction logs after extended WAL archive failures