On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 4:31 AM, Seref Arikan wrote:
> Hi Merlin,
> So should I interpret this as: there is a potential gain from choosing
> subqueries over with WITHs ?
Well, potentially, yes. WITH is a mechanic to force iterative order
of evaluation on queries. This can be a good or bad thing
Hi Merlin,
So should I interpret this as: there is a potential gain from choosing
subqueries over with WITHs ?
On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 3:33 PM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 9:22 AM, Joe Van Dyk wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 1:02 AM, Albe Laurenz
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> J
On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 9:22 AM, Joe Van Dyk wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 1:02 AM, Albe Laurenz
> wrote:
>>
>> Joe Van Dyk wrote:
>> > My assumption was that WITH acted just like subselects, but apparently
>> > they don't? Using WITH doesn't
>> > use the expected index.
>>
>> Currently WITH a
On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 1:02 AM, Albe Laurenz wrote:
> Joe Van Dyk wrote:
> > My assumption was that WITH acted just like subselects, but apparently
> they don't? Using WITH doesn't
> > use the expected index.
>
> Currently WITH acts as an "optimization fence", that means
> that means that the pla
Joe Van Dyk wrote:
> My assumption was that WITH acted just like subselects, but apparently they
> don't? Using WITH doesn't
> use the expected index.
Currently WITH acts as an "optimization fence", that means
that means that the planner won't move conditions into or
out of the WITH query.
Yours
My assumption was that WITH acted just like subselects, but apparently they
don't? Using WITH doesn't use the expected index.
(the below also at:
https://gist.github.com/joevandyk/839413fac7b3bdd32cb3/raw/cec015d16bed7f4e20ab0101b58ae74a1df1cdc2/gistfile1.txt
create view promotion_details1 as (
