On Thursday, August 28, 2003, at 11:58 AM, Stephan Szabo wrote:
>> It calls them "derived tables", which makes sense to me. Couldn't see
> One question is whether or not they can have limit clauses applied to
> them in the query expression, but they probably can.
Yeah, and they use the same keywords, which I applaud. Not that it
matters, since Bricolage hasn't been ported yet.
> Looks like 7.2 supports queries of that form from trying against our
> unused 7.2 server here.
Oh, good. I have no trouble bumping the requirement up to 7.2. 7.1 is
ancient history already.
> Performance-wise it should be pretty reasonable since the query plan
> for that section basically becomes
> Subquery Scan
> <Normal Scan>
> where the limit and subquery scan should be nearly free. And, it save
> from having to join rows that you're not actually using.
Excellent. Many thanks again, Stephan.
David Wheeler AIM: dwTheory
david(at)kineticode(dot)com ICQ: 15726394
http://www.kineticode.com/ Yahoo!: dew7e
Kineticode. Setting knowledge in motion.[sm]
In response to
- Re: Offset at 2003-08-28 18:58:47 from Stephan Szabo
sfpug by date
|Next:||From: Josh Berkus||Date: 2003-09-03 15:50:08|
|Subject: Re: Clarifying File System Syncs|
|Previous:||From: elein||Date: 2003-08-28 19:22:48|
|Subject: Clarifying File System Syncs|