On Thursday 06 July 2006 21:55, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote: > On Thu, Jul 06, 2006 at 07:43:20PM +0300, Tzahi Fadida wrote: > > The downside is that i noticed that the CTID is removed from the tuple > > if a cast occurs. Is there a way to tell postgresql to not remove the > > CTID? > > Err, the fact the ctid is removed is really just a side-effect. With no > adjusting of the output, you may just get the actual on-disk tuple. But > as soon as you do some manipulation, you get a new tuple. > > > The other way, of course is to add CTID as an attribute in the query > > but it seems less efficient since i am accessing it repeatedly. > > If you want the ctid, you have to ask for it. > > But this seems a little like premature optimisation. First, make it > work, then make it fast. Once you've got it working you can worry about > performance. Adding an extra column to the output costs very, very > little compared to other things...
It works, i use this technique for index accesses. I am not worried about getting this to work since i already tried this. I am more worried about optimization. Well, it is probably the lesser evil of dealing with casting. P.s. the code is running and can be found here: http://pgfoundry.org/projects/fulldisjunction/ -- Regards, Tzahi. -- Tzahi Fadida Blog: http://tzahi.blogsite.org | Home Site: http://tzahi.webhop.info WARNING TO SPAMMERS: see at http://members.lycos.co.uk/my2nis/spamwarning.html ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
