Re: missing optimization - column <> column
От | Serge Rielau |
---|---|
Тема | Re: missing optimization - column <> column |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 129FB21D-E60B-4FAB-9AE9-9381A934CC1D@rielau.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: missing optimization - column <> column (Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Actually there are lots of things that can be done with this sort of theorem proving.
And NULL is a plenty good answer for a filter, just not for a check constraint.
Amongst them INSERT through UNION ALL for symmetric views which can be handy for FDW partitioned tables.
One such implementation an be found here:
https://www.google.com/patents/US6728952 (apparently expired)
Cheers
Serge
On Dec 5, 2016, at 7:28 AM, Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> wrote:2016-12-05 16:24 GMT+01:00 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>:Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> writes:
> I found some crazy queries in one customer application. These queries are
> stupid, but it was surprise for me so there are not some simple optimization
> create table foo(a int);
> insert into foo select generate_series(1,100000);
> analyze foo;
> explain select * from foo where a <> a;
> It does full scan of foo, although it should be replaced by false in
> planner time.
> Same issue is a expression a = a .. can be replaced by true
Wrong; those expressions yield NULL for NULL input. You could perhaps
optimize them slightly into some form of is-null test, but it hardly
seems worth the planner cycles to check for.understand
If you write something like "1 <> 1", it will be folded.it works, but a <> a notRegardsPavel
regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: