Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

RE: [HACKERS] RE: [GENERAL] Long update query ? (also Re: [GENERAL] CNF vs. DNF)

From: "Taral" <taral(at)mail(dot)utexas(dot)edu>
To: "Bruce Momjian" <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: <jwieck(at)debis(dot)com>, <hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org>
Subject: RE: [HACKERS] RE: [GENERAL] Long update query ? (also Re: [GENERAL] CNF vs. DNF)
Date: 1998-10-02 22:04:24
Message-ID: 000201bdee50$9d9c4320$3b291f0a@taral (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-generalpgsql-hackers
> How do we do that with UNION, and return the right rows.  Seems the
> _join_ happending multiple times would be much worse than the factoring.

Ok... We have two problems:

1) DNF for unjoined queries.
2) Factorization for the rest.

I have some solutions for (1). Not for (2). Remember that unjoined queries
are quite common. :)

For (1), we can always try to parallel the multiple queries... especially in
the case where a sequential search is required.

Taral


In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 1998-10-02 22:36:07
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Bug in contrib/spi/refint.c
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 1998-10-02 21:58:00
Subject: Open 6.4 items

pgsql-general by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 1998-10-02 22:36:07
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Bug in contrib/spi/refint.c
Previous:From: Anand SureliaDate: 1998-10-02 21:57:23
Subject: Bug in contrib/spi/refint.c

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group