Re: [HACKERS] RE: [GENERAL] Long update query ? (also Re: [GENERAL] CNF vs. DNF)

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Bruce Momjian
Тема Re: [HACKERS] RE: [GENERAL] Long update query ? (also Re: [GENERAL] CNF vs. DNF)
Дата
Msg-id 199810071756.NAA02839@candle.pha.pa.us
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: [HACKERS] RE: [GENERAL] Long update query ? (also Re: [GENERAL] CNF vs. DNF)  (David Hartwig <daveh@insightdist.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers
> The problem is that you cannot depend upon factoring to reduce these complex
> statements.   We need to retain a place holder (pointer) for each passed
> parameter.   Otherwise we need to re-(parse and plan) the statement before each
> execution; thus, loosing one of the major benefits of PREPARE.

I think we already have such a problem.  When using optimization
statistics, the optimizer checks the value of the constant to determine
how many rows will be returned by a "x > 10" by looking at the min/max
values for the column.  Prepared queries where this value will change
would make that a problem.



--
  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:

Предыдущее
От: Bruce Momjian
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] Portability Issue in src/backend/port/snprintf.c (I think)
Следующее
От: David Hartwig
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] RE: [GENERAL] Long update query ? (also Re: [GENERAL] CNF vs. DNF)