Tom Lane wrote:
Chris writes:
I can see it's doing the extra filter step at the start (4th line) which
is not present without the coalesce/case statement. I just don't
understand why it's being done at that stage.
It's not that hard to understand. With the original view formulation
(or the
(now that my test went through, here is the question :) )
Dear Community,
We are using PostgreSQL proudly for quite a long time, but now we are
facing an interesting problem. Query plan seems to depend on how long
the IN() clause is.
explain analyze
select p.product_id
from product p left join
sorry, I just wonder why I can't get my message delivered...
--
Üdvözlettel,
Gábriel Ákos
-=E-Mail :akos.gabr...@i-logic.hu|Web: http://www.i-logic.hu=-
-=Tel/fax:+3612391618|Mobil:+36209278894 =-
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 7:30 PM, Chris wrote:
> I have a view that looks like this:
>
> SELECT
>CASE
>WHEN r.assetid IS NULL THEN p.assetid
>ELSE r.assetid
>END AS assetid,
>CASE
>WHEN r.userid IS NULL THEN p.userid
>ELSE r.
Chris writes:
> I can see it's doing the extra filter step at the start (4th line) which
> is not present without the coalesce/case statement. I just don't
> understand why it's being done at that stage.
It's not that hard to understand. With the original view formulation
(or the COALESCE vers
