On 5/2/06, Brandon Black [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 4/30/06, Heikki Linnakangas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 28 Apr 2006, Brandon Black wrote: I dug around in CVS to have a look for this, and I did eventually find
it (well, I found the corresponding docs patch that removed the note about
On Tue, 2006-05-02 at 00:27 -0500, Brandon Black wrote:
I tried things like the above with small test data sets against cvs
just now on my home machine, and constraint exclusion doesn't seem to
apply here (even if all of the joined jstuff rows have ids which only
match the constraint for
On 5/2/06, Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2006-05-02 at 00:27 -0500, Brandon Black wrote:
I tried things like the above with small test data sets against cvs
just now on my home machine, and constraint exclusion doesn't seem to
apply here (even if all of the joined jstuff rows
Ühel kenal päeval, T, 2006-05-02 kell 00:27, kirjutas Brandon Black:
On 4/30/06, Heikki Linnakangas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 28 Apr 2006, Brandon Black wrote:
I dug around in CVS to have a look for this, and I did eventually find
it (well, I found the corresponding docs patch
On 4/30/06, Heikki Linnakangas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 28 Apr 2006, Brandon Black wrote:
I dug around in CVS to have a look for this, and I did eventually find
it (well, I found the corresponding docs patch that removed the note
about not working for joins). I see it's in MAIN but
Brandon Black [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Is this sort of dynamic constraint exclusion on the radar?
What sort of fantasy have you got in mind?
It doesn't seem likely to me that testing constraints explicitly against
each row from the other table would be a win compared to letting the
indexes do
On Fri, 28 Apr 2006, Brandon Black wrote:
I dug around in CVS to have a look for this, and I did eventually find
it (well, I found the corresponding docs patch that removed the note
about not working for joins). I see it's in MAIN but not in
8_1_STABLE. Does that mean it's headed for 8.2.x
On 4/27/06, Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Brandon Black [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I was wondering (for planning purposes) if anyone knew the status of
constraint exclusions moving up to query runtime and working for
joins.
The latter, done; the former, not on the radar screen IMHO.
I
I was wondering (for planning purposes) if anyone knew the status of
constraint exclusions moving up to query runtime and working for
joins. Is this something that's coming down the pipe in the
foreseeable future, or just on a back-burner to-do list, or probably
never happening, or... ?
I have a
Brandon Black [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I was wondering (for planning purposes) if anyone knew the status of
constraint exclusions moving up to query runtime and working for
joins.
The latter, done; the former, not on the radar screen IMHO.
regards, tom lane
10 matches
Mail list logo
