> Personally, I'll bet lunch that that external software is outright
> broken, ie it probably thinks "X = X" is constant true and they found
> they could save two lines of code and a few machine cycles by emitting
> that rather than not emitting anything. Of course, the amount of
> parsing/planning time wasted in dealing with the useless-and-incorrect
> clause exceeds what was saved by multiple orders of magnitude, but hey
> it was easy.
Well, it was more in the form of:
tab1.x = COALESCE(tab2.y,tab1.x)
... which some programmer 8 years ago though would be a cute shorthand for:
tab.x = tab2.y OR tab2.y IS NULL
Still stupid, sure, but when you're dealing with partly-third-party
legacy software which was ported from MSSQL (which has issues with "IS
NULL"), that's what you get.
> It wouldn't take too much new code to get the planner to replace "X = X"
> with "X IS NOT NULL", but I think we're probably fixing the wrong piece
> of software if we do.
Well, I'd be more satisfied with having a solution for:
WHERE tab1.x = tab1.y
... in general, even if it didn't have correlation stats. Like, what's
preventing us from using the same selectivity logic we would on a join
for that? It wouldn't be accurate for highly correlated columns (or for
colX = colx) but it would be a damsight better than defaultsel. Heck,
even multiplying the the two ndistincts together would be an improvement ...
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com
