From: | Gavin Sherry <swm(at)alcove(dot)com(dot)au> |
---|---|
To: | "Jonah H(dot) Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Status of Hierarchical Queries |
Date: | 2007-02-21 21:07:32 |
Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.58.0702220753560.1389@linuxworld.com.au |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 21 Feb 2007, Jonah H. Harris wrote:
> As was discussed in several threads, I'd handed over the
> responsibility of hierarchical queries to Greg Stark several weeks
> ago. He posted a preliminary patch which I don't believe anyone
> looked at. For 8.3's sake, I wanted to make sure we get the status of
> this out on the table so there won't be any surprises like those
> related to 8.2.
>
> Where are we at? Has anyone reviewed the preliminary work? Any
> comments, suggestions, etc?
Yes, I looked at it.
The WITH support seems okay. I guess I'd thought it might be represented
different internally (not a sub query) but the approach Greg has taken is
probably more straight forward (in that you get a lot of proven code for
free). It should work fine for recursive queries too, if you just re-seed
the param keys for every scan of the 'sub-query'.
I wonder if anyone can think of a good way to cost the recursive side of
the query. I'm still pre-coffee and it hurts my head :).
Gavin
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Phil Currier | 2007-02-21 21:17:19 | Re: Column storage positions |
Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2007-02-21 20:57:03 | bug in CHECK(some SIMILAR TO ..) |