On Sun, Jul 6, 2014 at 7:14 AM, Vik Fearing wrote:
> > NOT EXISTS translates to HASH ANTI JOIN and NOT IN translates to NOT
> > (HASHED) operation.
> >
> > Given that the columns used in NOT IN clause (for outer as well as
> > inner) are NOT NULL, should not it translate a NOT IN plan similar to
On 07/04/2014 06:12 AM, Sameer Kumar wrote:
> NOT EXISTS translates to HASH ANTI JOIN and NOT IN translates to NOT
> (HASHED) operation.
>
> Given that the columns used in NOT IN clause (for outer as well as
> inner) are NOT NULL, should not it translate a NOT IN plan similar to
> NOT EXISTS plan?
On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 11:52 PM, Steve Crawford <
scrawf...@pinpointresearch.com> wrote:
> You can easily test this for yourself using explain.
I tried it out.
NOT EXISTS translates to HASH ANTI JOIN and NOT IN translates to NOT
(HASHED) operation.
Given that the columns used in NOT IN clause
On 07/03/2014 08:35 AM, Sameer Kumar wrote:
Hi,
Postgres optimizer automatically tries to convert an IN clause to Hash
Join (something similar to EXISTS equivalent of that query).
Does a similar translation happen for NOT IN as well? Given that the
column used is NOT NUL.
Select * from em
