On Tue, 2008-09-02 at 13:20 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > Simon Riggs wrote: > > It turns out that a join like this > > > > select a.col2 > > from a left outer join b on a.col1 = b.col1 > > where b.col2 = 1; > > > > can be cheaper if we don't remove the join, when there is an index on > > a.col1 and b.col2, because the presence of b allows the values returned > > from b to be used for an index scan on a. > > Umm, you *can't* remove that join.
Yes, you can. The presence or absence of rows in b is not important to the result of the query because of the "left outer join". I spent nearly a whole day going down that deadend also. > Because of the condition "b.col2 = > 1", which implies that "b.col1 IS NOT NULL", No it doesn't, but as above, it is irrelevant anyway. > that's actually equal to: > select a.col2 > from a inner join b on a.col1 = b.col1 > where b.col2 = 1; -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support -- Sent via pgsql-patches mailing list (pgsql-patches@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-patches