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. Regards, Jeff Davis -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers