Re: Optimizing maximum/minimum queries (yet again)

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Optimizing maximum/minimum queries (yet again)
Date: 2005-04-09 04:26:36
Message-ID: 19257.1113020796@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> writes:
> Does this transformation work for a query of the form:
> SELECT min(x), max(y) FROM tab WHERE random() > 0.5;

I've been going back and forth on that. We wouldn't lose a lot in the
real world if we simply abandoned the optimization attempt whenever we
find any volatile functions in WHERE. OTOH you could also argue that
we have never guaranteed that volatile functions in WHERE would be
evaluated at every table row --- consider something like
SELECT ... WHERE x > 42 AND random() > 0.5;
All that this optimization might do is to further cut the fraction of
table rows at which the volatile function actually gets checked. So
I'm not seeing that it would break any code that worked reliably before.

Still, if it makes you feel at all uncomfortable, we can just refuse
the optimization in such cases.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2005-04-09 04:46:51 Re: [PATCHES] DELETE ... USING
Previous Message Neil Conway 2005-04-09 04:19:19 Re: Optimizing maximum/minimum queries (yet again)