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 21:49:26 |
Message-ID: | 000001bdee4e$86688b20$3b291f0a@taral |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
> > Very nice, but that's like trying to code factorization of
> numbers... not
> > pretty, and very CPU intensive on complex queries...
>
> Yes, but how large are the WHERE clauses going to be? Considering the
> cost of cnfify() and UNION, it seems like a clear win. Is it general
> enough to solve our problems?
Could be... the examples I received where the cnfify() was really bad were
cases where the query was submitted alredy in DNF... and where the UNION was
a simple one. However, I don't know of any algorithms for generic
simplification of logical constraints. One problem is resolution/selection
of factors:
SELECT * FROM a WHERE (a = 1 AND b = 2 AND c = 3) OR (a = 4 AND b = 2 AND c
= 3) OR (a = 1 AND b = 5 AND c = 3) OR (a = 1 AND b = 2 AND c = 6);
Try that on for size. You can understand why that code gets ugly, fast.
Somebody could try coding it, but it's not a clear win to me.
My original heuristic was missing one thing: "Where the heuristic fails to
process or decide, default to CNF." Since that's the current behavior, we're
less likely to break things.
Taral
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 1998-10-02 21:57:15 | Re: [HACKERS] RE: [GENERAL] Long update query ? (also Re: [GENERAL] CNF vs. DNF) |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 1998-10-02 21:39:05 | Re: [HACKERS] RE: [GENERAL] Long update query ? (also Re: [GENERAL] CNF vs. DNF) |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 1998-10-02 21:57:15 | Re: [HACKERS] RE: [GENERAL] Long update query ? (also Re: [GENERAL] CNF vs. DNF) |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 1998-10-02 21:39:05 | Re: [HACKERS] RE: [GENERAL] Long update query ? (also Re: [GENERAL] CNF vs. DNF) |