On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 11:15:52PM +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-04-28 at 14:38 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> > > I think the join removal feature is of critical importance, much more so
> > > than many of the above items.
> > I just don't have any figures on actual performance benefit from this,
> > which will be the *first* thing a reporter asks.
> "Orders of magnitude" saving. It's not *faster* it just doesn't do the
> work at all any more.
> > > I might describe it like in *one* of these ways
> > >
> > > * Automatic join removal to optimise complex SQL generated by OR mapping
> > >
> > > * Major new optimizations for complex automatically generated SQL
> > How about
> > * Optimization of ORM-generated queries through automatic join removal
> Good. All 3 do it for me, but I think I'm too close to judge.
Is it worth considering that more than just ORMs are responsible for
machine-generated SQL, and just saying "machine-generated" instead of
"ORM-generated"? Provided, that is, that the extra four characters don't make
the line wrap :)
Joshua Tolley / eggyknap
End Point Corporation
In response to
pgsql-advocacy by date
|Next:||From: Selena Deckelmann||Date: 2010-04-30 16:44:54|
|Subject: Fwd: PostgreSQL speaker DESPERATELY NEEDED for Southeast Linuxfest|
|Previous:||From: Peter Eisentraut||Date: 2010-04-30 06:43:42|
|Subject: Re: DRAFT beta release announcement|