| From: | Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | taral(at)mail(dot)utexas(dot)edu (Taral) |
| Cc: | hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [GENERAL] Long update query ? (also Re: [GENERAL] CNF vs. DNF) |
| Date: | 1998-10-02 16:40:56 |
| Message-ID: | 199810021640.MAA10925@candle.pha.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
[Charset iso-8859-1 unsupported, filtering to ASCII...]
> > This is interesting. Check CNF size and DNF size. Choose smallest.
> > CNF uses existing code, DNF converts to UNIONs. How do you return the
> > proper rows with/without proper duplicates?
>
> Create a temporary oid hash? (for each table selected on, I guess)
>
> Taral
>
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.
--
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
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Taral | 1998-10-02 16:47:48 | RE: [GENERAL] Long update query ? (also Re: [GENERAL] CNF vs. DNF) |
| Previous Message | Taral | 1998-10-02 16:37:15 | RE: [GENERAL] Long update query ? (also Re: [GENERAL] CNF vs. DNF) |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Taral | 1998-10-02 16:47:48 | RE: [GENERAL] Long update query ? (also Re: [GENERAL] CNF vs. DNF) |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 1998-10-02 16:37:23 | Re: [HACKERS] indices: ~* / text_ops |