| From: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andreas Karlsson <andreas(at)proxel(dot)se> |
| Cc: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Early WIP/PoC for inlining CTEs |
| Date: | 2018-10-04 18:49:53 |
| Message-ID: | 20181004184952.GO25294@fetter.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Oct 04, 2018 at 11:22:32AM +0200, Andreas Karlsson wrote:
> On 10/03/2018 05:57 PM, David Fetter wrote:
> >Is there any meaningful distinction between "inlining," by which I
> >mean converting to a subquery, and predicate pushdown, which
> >would happen at least for a first cut, at the rewrite stage?
>
> Sorry, but I do not think I understand your question. The ability to push
> down predicates is just one of the potential benefits from inlining.
Oracle appears to have such a distinction, and it appears we don't.
https://medium.com/@hakibenita/be-careful-with-cte-in-postgresql-fca5e24d2119
Best,
David.
--
David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778
Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Emílio B. Pedrollo | 2018-10-04 19:05:17 | Changes in Brazil DST's period |
| Previous Message | Amit Khandekar | 2018-10-04 17:29:17 | Re: TupleTableSlot abstraction |