Re: [HACKERS] RE: [GENERAL] Long update query ? (also Re: [GENERAL] CNF vs. DNF)
| От | Bruce Momjian |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: [HACKERS] RE: [GENERAL] Long update query ? (also Re: [GENERAL] CNF vs. DNF) |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 199810022139.RAA21082@candle.pha.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | RE: [HACKERS] RE: [GENERAL] Long update query ? (also Re: [GENERAL] CNF vs. DNF) ("Taral" <taral@mail.utexas.edu>) |
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
[Charset iso-8859-1 unsupported, filtering to ASCII...] > > Another idea is that we rewrite queries such as: > > > > SELECT * > > FROM tab > > WHERE (a=1 AND b=2 AND c=3) OR > > (a=1 AND b=2 AND c=4) OR > > (a=1 AND b=2 AND c=5) OR > > (a=1 AND b=2 AND c=6) > > > > into: > > > > SELECT * > > FROM tab > > WHERE (a=1 AND b=2) AND (c=3 OR c=4 OR c=5 OR c=6) > > Very nice, but that's like trying to code factorization of numbers... not > pretty, and very CPU intensive on complex queries... Yes, but how large are the WHERE clauses going to be? Considering the cost of cnfify() and UNION, it seems like a clear win. Is it general enough to solve our problems? -- Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle maillist@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000 + If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: