>> WHERE (l2.start BETWEEN l1.start AND l1.end
>> OR
>> l1.start BETWEEN l2.start AND l2.end
>> )
>Yes, that's another way to calculate an overlap. However, it turns out to not be that fast.
>The problem is that OR there, which causes a bitmap index scan, as the leaf of a nested loop join,
>which can be rather slow.
Ok , than splitting these checks in 2 Queries with UNION is better.
But I often read that BETWEEN is faster than using 2 comparison operators.
Here I guess that a combined index on (start,end) makes sense:
..
WHERE l2.start BETWEEN l1.start AND l1.end
..
UNION
..
WHERE l1.start BETWEEN l2.start AND l2.end
..
The first clause being equivalent to
AND l1.start <= l2.end
AND l1.end >= l2.start
AND l1.start <= l2.start
I don't know how you have to deal the limit conditions...
Marc Mamin
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
