On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 2:30 PM, Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-04-10 at 20:25 +0200, Yeb Havinga wrote:
>> I was thinking of a case for instance for ranges a,b,c in relations
>> A,B,C respectively, where a && b and b && c, but not a && c. Would the
>> planner consider a join path of table A and C first, then that result
>> with B. After looking in doxygen, it looks like having && defined
>> without MERGES is what prevents this unwanted behaviour, since that
>> prevents a,b and c to become members of the same equivalence class.
>
> Interesting, I would have to make sure that didn't happen. Most likely
> there would be a new property like "RANGEMERGES", it wouldn't reuse the
> existing MERGES property.
>
>> Sorry for the spam on the list.
>
> Not at all, it's an interesting point.
Yeah... I agree.
...Robert
