[Charset iso-8859-1 unsupported, filtering to ASCII...]
> > > 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?

I certainly think we are heading in the direction for a good general
solution.


-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://www.op.net/~candle
  maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us            |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

In response to

• RE: [GENERAL] Long update query ? (also Re: [GENERAL] CNF vs. DNF) at 1998-10-02 16:47:48 from Taral

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Bruce Momjian	Date: 1998-10-02 17:58:25
	Subject: Re: [HACKERS] RE: [GENERAL] Long update query ? (also Re: [GENERAL] CNF vs. DNF)
Previous:	From: Jan Wieck	Date: 1998-10-02 17:31:18
	Subject: Re: [HACKERS] RE: [GENERAL] Long update query ? (also Re: [GENERAL] CNF vs. DNF)

pgsql-general by date

Next:	From: Martin Schulze	Date: 1998-10-02 17:56:18
	Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Re: More PostgreSQL stuff
Previous:	From: Jan Wieck	Date: 1998-10-02 17:31:18
	Subject: Re: [HACKERS] RE: [GENERAL] Long update query ? (also Re: [GENERAL] CNF vs. DNF)