I was not referring to database indexes. That is not pertinent here. I was thinking about the index that Google creates, its locally cached version, that it queries. If you have a locally cached version, you are not going to rifle through them one by one until you find matches, nor are you going to rifle through them and find partial matches and then intersect them all to see if any overlap in your final product. Among other weird assumptions, that final method assumes there is a solution for every query.
Google, no doubt, has a very sophisticated way of querying against their cache of the WWW and it has probably evolved over time. However, it is inappropriate to say Google does a join over the entire internet for one query. It is much more reasonable to say that Google checked your query string against their gigantic index of terms, and it took a while to dig that deep into the pile. The performance hit such a complex query takes is more like unzipping a large archive to get a specific megabyte's worth of info, rather than saying it smashed all the files together and then searched for the exact term like notepad.
Anyway, think about it for a while, it's clearly a cool issue in search, and programs and algorithms do not have to visually search things as humans must.