Re: immutable functions vs. join for lookups ?

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Greg Stark
Тема Re: immutable functions vs. join for lookups ?
Дата
Msg-id 87u0m4j5p0.fsf@stark.xeocode.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: immutable functions vs. join for lookups ?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Ответы Re: immutable functions vs. join for lookups ?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Список pgsql-performance
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:

> It would be interesting sometime to try to teach the planner about
> inlining SQL-language functions to become joins.  That is, given
>
> create function id2name(int) returns text as
> 'select name from mytab where id = $1' language sql stable;
>
> select uid, id2name(uid) from othertab where something;
>
> I think that in principle this could automatically be converted to
>
> select uid, name from othertab left join mytab on (uid = id) where something;

The Inlining of the function is presumably a side-issue. I have tons of
queries that use subqueries in the select list for which the same behaviour
would be appropriate.

Things like

select uid, (select name from mytab where id = uid) as name from othertab ...


> There are some pitfalls though, particularly that you'd have to be able to
> prove that the function's query couldn't return more than one row (else the
> join might produce more result rows than the original query).

Or just have a special join type that has the desired behaviour in that case.
Ie, pretend the query was really

SELECT * FROM othertab LEFT SINGLE JOIN mytab ...

Where "LEFT SINGLE JOIN" is an imaginary syntax that doesn't actually have to
exist in the parser, but exists in the planner/executor and behaves
differently in the case of duplicate matches.

Actually I could see such a syntax being useful directly too.

--
greg

В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Bruce Momjian
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Compressing WAL
Следующее
От: "Mohan, Ross"
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: How to improve db performance with $7K?