Fair enough.
Many thanks for taking time out to follow up and clear my misunderstanding.
I’ll not pollute the thread , since OP got what he wanted.
But I’ll have to spend more time trying to simulate it with data and reread what you want to say :).
But thanks again for clearing that up.
On Wed, 12 May 2021 at 8:16 AM Niels Jespersen <
NJN@dst.dk> wrote:
Fra: David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com> Sendt: 12. maj 2021 02:34
>>
>> ok i think i just may be there is very less data , hence no index scan, no pruning.
>>
>> when i try to force seq_scan off,
>>
>
>Unfortunately, no run-time pruning occurred in the above plan.
>
>The fact that the above plan uses Append made that possible.
>
>I think, for now, the only sure way to get run-time pruning working for this case is to run two separate queries so that the 2nd one can
>perform plan-time pruning.
This is the conclusion I'm taking from this thread and will base my further work on. I was the one asking the original question. A table returning function is my work-hypothesis for now.
>
>
>I think if you try to make this work by trying to force the planner's hand, you'll just feel pain when the planner one day has a change of heart and decides to swap the join order on you.
>
>David
>
Thank you for the insights into the planner capabilities.
Regards Niels
--
Thanks,
Vijay
Mumbai, India
