"Craig A. James" <cjames@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Is there some way to explain this cost to the optimizer in a permanent
> way,
Nope, sorry. One thing you could do in the particular case at hand is
to rejigger the WHERE clause involving the function so that it requires
values from both tables and therefore can't be applied till after the
join is made. (If nothing else, give the function an extra dummy
argument that can be passed as a variable from the other table.)
This is an ugly and non-general solution of course.
> The only way I've thought of is something like this:
> select X.id from
> (select A.id, A.foo, A.row_num
> from A join B ON (A.id = B.id)
> where A.row_num >= 0 and A.row_num <= 43477
> and B.id = 52) as X
> where myfunc(X.foo, 'FooBar') order by X.row_num;
As written, that won't work because the planner will happily flatten the
query to the same thing you had before. You can put an OFFSET 0 into
the sub-select to prevent that from happening, but realize that this
creates a pretty impervious optimization fence ... the side-effects
might be undesirable when you come to look at real queries instead
of toy cases.
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
