From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | Etsuro Fujita <fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Rushabh Lathia <rushabh(dot)lathia(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Postgres_fdw join pushdown - wrong results with whole-row reference |
Date: | 2016-06-24 19:16:58 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoaG5FBxgYp257r-egmaoMOUdOru8e3vLrfmu4XRnKdOjQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 5:16 AM, Ashutosh Bapat
<ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>> However, if we support deparsing subqueries, the remote query in the above
>> example could be rewritten into something like this:
>>
>> SELECT ss.c2 FROM t1 LEFT JOIN (SELECT t2.a, ROW(a, b) FROM t2) ss(c1, c2)
>> ON (t1.a = ss.c1);
>>
>> So we would no longer need "CASE WHEN r2.* IS NOT NULL THEN ROW(r2.a,
>> r2.b) END" in the target list in the remote query.
>
> Right. Although, it means that the query processor at the other end has to
> do extra work for pulling up the subqueries.
I would be inclined to pick the method that generates cleaner SQL. I
doubt that difference in optimization speed matters here - it's
presumably very small, especially when compared to the cost of the
network round-trip.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2016-06-24 20:33:59 | Re: Bug in to_timestamp(). |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2016-06-24 19:14:46 | Re: Postgres_fdw join pushdown - wrong results with whole-row reference |