Hi, Sorry, I missed this e-mail before I send mine. My initial idea about join_collapse_limit was already proposed. I didn't understand the SQL Server syntaxe, how force the ordering for an internal Select node? I agree, the postgres way is less flexible, but this saved me in some of situations. I'm not sure, but the postgres way would be more easily to implement (right?).
Regards, Fred 2015-03-11 20:50 GMT-03:00 Mike Goodwin <[email protected]>: > So aside from improving the optimizer what would fix my problem would be > the ability to add hints to fix the join ordering. I know this is on the > road map and I wouldn't mind doing it and do not think it should be too > hard to implement (it amounts to adding something to pick up hints in the > parser then disabling the optimizer). Has any thought been been put into > what the hint syntax for this would look like? > > Oracle uses > SELECT /*+ORDERED */ ... > > Sql Server Uses > SELECT > ... > OPTION (FORCE ORDER) > > Postrges uses (this seems less flexible, as it is per query not per > select): > join_collapse_limit (1) > SELECT ... > > I think actually prefer the oracle method! > > - mike > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "H2 Database" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/h2-database. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "H2 Database" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/h2-database. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
