| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Shigeru HANADA <hanada(at)metrosystems(dot)co(dot)jp>, Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, SAKAMOTO Masahiko <sakamoto(dot)masahiko(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: patch: SQL/MED(FDW) DDL |
| Date: | 2010-10-05 15:25:13 |
| Message-ID: | 24765.1286292313@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> On 05.10.2010 17:56, Robert Haas wrote:
>> I can't imagine how an FDW could possibly be expected to perform well
>> without some persistent local data storage.
> It doesn't seem completely out of the question to me.
One other point that could be made here is that it's not going to
surprise anybody that access to a remote table is really slow compared
to access to a local table. Why would it surprise anybody if planning
for a remote table is really slow compared to planning for a local
table? Where is the evidence that anyone would even *notice* the extra
planning time, compared to the execution time of the finished query?
This is still all about premature optimization.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2010-10-05 15:28:57 | Re: leaky views, yet again |
| Previous Message | Craig Ringer | 2010-10-05 15:21:56 | Re: Re: Proposed Windows-specific change: Enable crash dumps (like core files) |