Hey John, and thanks for the input.
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 11:00 AM, John Melesky wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 12:20 AM, Ken Tanzer wrote:
>
>> First and foremost (and primarily directed to people who are kind enough
>> to provide help on this list), is a script like this worthwhile? Will
> (3) is an instance of seeing "a = b and b = c" and deducing "a = c" from
> that. (4) does not follow that pattern, so it's outside the realm of what
the
> planner can deduce.
I see, that makes sense. I assumed there was something more complex going
on in
the background. What about converting (1
Gavin Wahl writes:
> It'd be nice if the planner could optimize the query (1) by turning it
> into (2). I understand that it might not be able to, but if it can pull
> the condition up in (3), why can't it in (4)?
(3) is an instance of seeing "a = b and b = c" and deducing "a = c" from
that. (4)
On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 10:39 AM, John Melesky
wrote:
> (off-list)
>
(on-list)
> I doubt I'm the first to ask, but have you considered putting this up on
> github (or similar) so others can contribute more easily and keep it
> up-to-date?
>
> If that's not in the cards, are you opposed to someone
