From: | Zoltan Boszormenyi <zboszor(at)dunaweb(dot)hu> |
---|---|
To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Performance testing of COPY (SELECT) TO |
Date: | 2006-08-28 15:33:23 |
Message-ID: | 44F30CC3.2010002@dunaweb.hu |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Andrew Dunstan írta:
> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> Böszörményi Zoltán wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> what's the problem with COPY view TO, other than you don't like it? :-)
>>>
>>
>> The problem is that it required a ugly piece of code. Not supporting it
>> means we can keep the code nice. The previous discussion led to this
>> conclusion anyway so I don't know why we are debating it again.
>>
>>
>
> What is so ugly about it? I haven't looked at the code, but I am
> curious to know.
>
> I also don't recall the consensus being quite so clear cut. I guess
> there is a case for saying that if it's not allowed then you know that
> "COPY relname TO" is going to be fast. But, code aesthetics aside, the
> reasons for disallowing it seem a bit thin, to me.
>
> cheers
>
> andrew
>
I would say the timing difference between
"COPY table TO" and "COPY (SELECT * FROM table) TO"
was noise, so it's not even faster.
And an updatable VIEW *may* allow COPY view FROM...
Best regards,
Zoltán Böszörményi
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2006-08-28 15:46:08 | Good news on CPU scaling for latest 8.2 |
Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2006-08-28 15:07:40 | Re: [PATCHES] Another VPATH patch for ecpg |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2006-08-28 15:54:16 | Re: [HACKERS] Performance testing of COPY (SELECT) TO |
Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2006-08-28 15:07:40 | Re: [PATCHES] Another VPATH patch for ecpg |