On 7 March 2013 18:47, Tom Lane wrote:
> Good idea, but no such luck in that form: it's still not going to try to
> push the parameterization down into the sub-query. I think you'd have
> to write out the query with the views expanded and manually put the
> WHERE restrictions into the lowest join
David Leverton writes:
> On 7 March 2013 05:52, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Josh Berkus writes:
>>> Actually, in case #4, Postgres *is* pushing down the join qual into the
>>> segments of the Union.
>> Yeah, but not further. I believe the core issue here (as of 9.2) is
>> that we're not willing to gene
On 7 March 2013 05:52, Tom Lane wrote:
> Josh Berkus writes:
>> On 03/06/2013 06:54 AM, David Leverton wrote:
>>> I'm encountering very poor query plans when joining against a union,
>
>> Actually, in case #4, Postgres *is* pushing down the join qual into the
>> segments of the Union.
>
> Yeah, b
Josh Berkus writes:
> On 03/06/2013 06:54 AM, David Leverton wrote:
>> I'm encountering very poor query plans when joining against a union,
> Actually, in case #4, Postgres *is* pushing down the join qual into the
> segments of the Union.
Yeah, but not further. I believe the core issue here (as
On 03/06/2013 06:54 AM, David Leverton wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm encountering very poor query plans when joining against a union,
> where one branch of the union is itself a join: specifically, Postgres
> does the entire inside join and then filters the result, rather than
> pushing the filters dow
