Kevin Grittner wrote:
I rewrote the query to use IN predicates rather than EXISTS predicates,
and the cost estimates look like this:
EXISTS, no index: 1.6 billion
EXISTS, with index: 0.023 billion
IN, no index: 13.7 billion
IN, with index: 10.6 billion
At least for the two EXISTS cases, th
"Kevin Grittner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It struck me that it would be outstanding if the planner could
> recognize this sort of situation, and build a temporary index based on
> the snapshot of the data visible to the transaction.
I don't think that's an appropriate solution at all. What i
