Re: Q: Performance of join vs embedded query for simple queries?

On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 09:21:33PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> mark@mark.mielke.cc writes:
> > I have two simple queries that do what I believe to be the exact same
> > thing.
> These are actually not equivalent per spec.
> ...
> This still isn't equivalent to the join: it'll return at most one copy
> of any sm_change row, whereas you can get multiple copies of the same
> sm_change row from the join, if there were multiple matching sm_system
> rows.  (Hm, given the unique index on (system_dbid, uid), I guess that
> couldn't actually happen --- but you have to reason about it knowing
> that that index is there, it's not obvious from the form of the query.)

> Anyway: given the way that the planner works, the IN form and the join
> form will probably take comparable amounts of time to plan.  The "=
> subselect" form is much more constrained in terms of the number of
> alternative implementations we have, so it doesn't surprise me that it
> takes less time to plan.

That makes sense. Would it be reasonable for the planner to eliminate
plan considerations based on the existence of unique indexes, or is
this a fundamentally difficult thing to get right in the general case?

I did the elimination in my head, which is why I considered the plans to
be the same. Can the planner do it?

Sub-millisecond planning/execution for simple queries on moderate
hardware seems sexy... :-)

Thanks,
mark

--
mark@mielke.cc / markm@ncf.ca / markm@nortel.com     __________________________
.  .  _  ._  . .   .__    .  . ._. .__ .   . . .__  | Neighbourhood Coder
|\/| |_| |_| |/    |_     |\/|  |  |_  |   |/  |_   |
|  | | | | \ | \   |__ .  |  | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__  | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

  One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all
                       and in the darkness bind them...

                           http://mark.mielke.cc/