On T, 2005-05-17 at 11:22 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Hannu Krosing [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On T, 2005-05-17 at 00:42 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
I seem to recall some discussion of how to do this in the past;
have you trolled the pghackers archives?
I think that Jasons inspiration for doing it
On Tue, May 17, 2005 at 11:24:19PM +0300, Hannu Krosing wrote:
On T, 2005-05-17 at 11:22 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Hannu Krosing [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On T, 2005-05-17 at 00:42 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
I seem to recall some discussion of how to do this in the past;
have you trolled the
On T, 2005-05-17 at 00:42 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
David Fetter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What's the next step?
I suppose the first thing would be to look over the patches I
mentioned and the SQL:2003 specification, then put together a
preliminary patch and send it to -hackers.
...
I
David--
My boss has given me approval to put up to 8 hours per week of SourceLabs'
time in on the SQL99 hierarchical query implementation. (I'm free, of
course, to supplement this with whatever of my own time I can spare.) I'm
willing to take on the work. What's the next step?
--Jason
Hannu Krosing [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On T, 2005-05-17 at 00:42 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
I seem to recall some discussion of how to do this in the past;
have you trolled the pghackers archives?
I think that Jasons inspiration for doing it came from the the fact that
there are already now
Tom Lane wrote:
Hannu Krosing [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On T, 2005-05-17 at 00:42 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
I seem to recall some discussion of how to do this in the past;
have you trolled the pghackers archives?
I think that Jasons inspiration for doing it came from the the fact that
On Mon, May 16, 2005 at 03:09:18PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
David--
My boss has given me approval to put up to 8 hours per week of
SourceLabs' time in on the SQL99 hierarchical query implementation.
That's great! :)
(I'm free, of course, to supplement this with whatever of my own
David Fetter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What's the next step?
I suppose the first thing would be to look over the patches I
mentioned and the SQL:2003 specification, then put together a
preliminary patch and send it to -hackers.
You can get useful feedback long before having anything that
Looks like hierarchical queries are now officially stalled :(
Anyone want to take this up for 8.1?
Chris
Original Message
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] SQL99 Hierarchical queries
Date: Sun, 15 May 2005 07:31:16 +0400
From: Evgen Potemkin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Evgen Potemkin [EMAIL
On Sun, May 15, 2005 at 04:44:57PM +0800, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
Looks like hierarchical queries are now officially stalled :(
Anyone want to take this up for 8.1?
Sergei and Jason,
Feel like taking SQL:1999 WITH RECURSIVE? It would be a giant help to
the PostgreSQL community. :)
Hi Evgen,
I just keep pinging this patch thread every once in a while to make sure
it doesn't get forgotten :)
How is the syncing with 8.1 CVS coming along?
Chris
Evgen Potemkin wrote:
Hi hackers!
I have done initial implementation of SQL99 WITH clause (attached).
It's now only for v7.3.4 and
Hi Evgen,
How's the syncing with HEAD going?
Cheers,
Chris
I'm working on it.
Regards, Evgen.
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend
Hi Evgen,
How's the syncing with HEAD going?
Cheers,
Chris
Evgen Potemkin wrote:
Ok, I'm started porting it to 8.0.1 and will fix this also.
By the way, did you know any test suit for such queries? To make some
regression test.
Regards, Evgen
I tested you patch, and it's good work. I would all
Hello hackers,
Thanks very much for doing this work. Is there some way you can
summarize what you did so others can join you in working on it? If it
is easier for you to write this in some language other than English,
please do, and we'll find translators :)
I noticed that the patch
Ok, I'm started porting it to 8.0.1 and will fix this also.
By the way, did you know any test suit for such queries? To make some
regression test.
Hello, I can find some examples on internet and prepare regression tests.
I think PostgreSQL can support all syntax H.Q. Is more easy created
Thanks very much for doing this work. Is there some way you can
summarize what you did so others can join you in working on it? If it
is easier for you to write this in some language other than English,
please do, and we'll find translators :)
I noticed that the patch touches the parser,
Ok, I'm started porting it to 8.0.1 and will fix this also.
By the way, did you know any test suit for such queries? To make some
regression test.
Regards, Evgen
I tested you patch, and it's good work. I would all methods in PostgreSQL.
I found query which kill backand
WITH t AS (
SELECT
On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 11:07:51AM +0300, Evgen Potemkin wrote:
Ok, I'm started porting it to 8.0.1 and will fix this also. By the
way, did you know any test suit for such queries? To make some
regression test.
Evgen,
Thanks very much for doing this work. Is there some way you can
I'm curious what kind of performance differences there would be over
using something like the nested-set model?
Would this be faster, or slower?
On Thu, 2005-02-24 at 13:02 +0300, Evgen Potemkin wrote:
Hi hackers!
I have done initial implementation of SQL99 WITH clause (attached).
It's now
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005, Evgen Potemkin wrote:
Ok, I'm started porting it to 8.0.1 and will fix this also.
By the way, did you know any test suit for such queries? To make some
regression test.
Hello, I can find some examples on internet and prepare regression tests.
I think PostgreSQL can
Mike,
I'm curious what kind of performance differences there would be over
using something like the nested-set model?
Would this be faster, or slower?
The answer is yes.;-)
Which tree structures you use depends on what you're trying to accomplish and
what your use case is. There are
hello,
I tested you patch, and it's good work. I would all methods in PostgreSQL.
I found query which kill backand
WITH t AS (
SELECT 0::int AS i
UNION ALL SELECT i + 1 FROM t WHERE i 100)
SELECT * FROM t;
Regards
Pavel Stehule
---(end of
I have done initial implementation of SQL99 WITH clause (attached).
It's now only for v7.3.4 and haven't a lot of checks and restrictions.
What kind of restrictions are on it?
Chris
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once
I have done initial implementation of SQL99 WITH clause (attached).
It's now only for v7.3.4 and haven't a lot of checks and restrictions.
What kind of restrictions are on it?
Main restriction is that the query inside WITH alias can refer only to
back and to itself.
For example
WITH a as
24 matches
Mail list logo
