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

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: <hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org>
Subject: RE: [GENERAL] Long update query ? (also Re: [GENERAL] CNF vs. DNF)
Date: 1998-10-02 16:47:48
Message-ID: 000301bdee24$63308740$3b291f0a@taral (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-generalpgsql-hackers
> > Create a temporary oid hash? (for each table selected on, I guess)
>
> What I did with indexes was to run the previous OR clause index
> restrictions through the qualification code, and make sure it failed,
> but I am not sure how that is going to work with a more complex WHERE
> clause.  Perhaps I need to restrict this to just simple cases of
> constants, which are easy to pick out an run through.  Doing this with
> joins would be very hard, I think.

Actually, I was thinking more of an index of returned rows... After each
subquery, the backend would check each row to see if it was already in the
index... Simple duplicate check, in other words. Of course, I don't know how
well this would behave with large tables being returned...

Anyone else have some ideas they want to throw in?

Taral


In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Thomas G. LockhartDate: 1998-10-02 16:52:29
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] patching utilities?
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 1998-10-02 16:40:56
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Long update query ? (also Re: [GENERAL] CNF vs. DNF)

pgsql-general by date

Next:From: Richard LynchDate: 1998-10-02 17:15:35
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Re: More PostgreSQL stuff
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 1998-10-02 16:40:56
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Long update query ? (also Re: [GENERAL] CNF vs. DNF)

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