Folks, thanks everyone for the valuable inputs, I think I more-or-less understand now what the options are for my particular problem.
On Wed, Feb 26, 2025, at 17:14, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
On Wed, Feb 26, 2025 at 10:40 AM <large.goose2829@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:> Does this mean that it is not possible to come up with a plan that has the same performance as "WHERE (col_1, col_2, col_3) > (10, 20, 29)" using "handwritten" filters, or only for "mixed order"? Or not a theoretical limitation but a limitation of the current implementation of the query planner?Perhaps the query planner should be taught to rewrite the query insuch a way as to make it unnecessary for you to do so -- I think thatthat's what MySQL is doing for you. That is beside the point.
Would it make sense to file a feature request for PostgreSQL to implement that MySQL-like optimization mentioned earlier?
On Wed, Feb 26, 2025, at 17:15, Laurenz Albe wrote:
Here are my ideas for this situation:
Laurenz, your post is a goldmine of advanced solutions, thanks for sharing.
Cheers,
Márton
