I realized this proposal has been withdrawn, but the fact the proposal
even illicited comments exploring it requires me to comment.
Folks, how can we entertain ideas that would break SELECT * and
no-column-list INSERTs for a small performance boost? If there was no
other way to get the
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Folks, how can we entertain ideas that would break SELECT * and
no-column-list INSERTs for a small performance boost? If there was no
other way to get the performance boost, and the features was rarely
used, we might consider such a change, but neither is true in this
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Folks, how can we entertain ideas that would break SELECT * and
no-column-list INSERTs for a small performance boost? If there was no
other way to get the performance boost, and the features was rarely
used, we might consider such a change,
In Simon's defense, I think we need to feel free to brainstorm a bit,
and propose things that might seem odd. There are plenty of cool heads
around to shoot down bad ideas, but we'll only make progress by
cherry-picking the good ideas. If one out of ten of my ideas is useful I
think I'm
On Mon, 2007-02-26 at 11:20 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
I realized this proposal has been withdrawn, but the fact the proposal
even illicited comments exploring it requires me to comment.
Folks, how can we entertain ideas that would break SELECT * and
no-column-list INSERTs for a small
Simon Riggs wrote:
On Mon, 2007-02-26 at 11:20 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
I realized this proposal has been withdrawn, but the fact the proposal
even illicited comments exploring it requires me to comment.
Folks, how can we entertain ideas that would break SELECT * and
On Mon, 2007-02-26 at 13:02 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Simon Riggs wrote:
On Mon, 2007-02-26 at 11:20 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
I realized this proposal has been withdrawn, but the fact the proposal
even illicited comments exploring it requires me to comment.
Folks, how can
Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The order of the columns is *arbitrary* in relational theory;
SQL is very far from being relational theory...
regards, tom lane
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 7: You can help support the
Simon Riggs wrote:
wondered why that proposal had been overlooked, so I started a separate
thread to ensure that the idea was discussed. That seems very similar to
many of your own posts.
True, but usually I don't see the breakage.
Sorry, I just meant you summarise ideas that
Bruce,
True, but usually I don't see the breakage. What concerned me is you
saw some of the breakage, but still went ahead with the proposal.
That's completely unfair, Bruce. This is a *discussion list*, and hackers are
free to propose and discuss even far-out improbable ideas in the hopes
Josh Berkus wrote:
For my part, I continue to the interested in this proposal and would like to
see some performance benchmarks on it. If there is enough performance gain,
I think it would be possible to implement a logical order which was
different from the physical order. Such a feature
On Thu, 2007-02-22 at 20:07 -0600, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Simon Riggs wrote:
I propose that at CREATE TABLE time, the column ordering is re-ordered
so that the table columns are packed more efficiently. This would be a
physical re-ordering, so that SELECT * and COPY without explicit column
Simon Riggs wrote:
If this is standards-breaking as you say, I would withdraw immediately.
I checked the SQL standard and could not see how this would do so. The
standard states SELECT * would return columns in order; it doesn't say
what that order should be, nor does CREATE TABLE enforce the
I don't understand the reluctance to implementing all of it.
The most serious objection I've seen, from Andreas IIRC, is
that it would make drivers' lives more difficult; but really,
drivers have to cope with dropped columns today which is a
Yes, I already said, that my objection is
Hi Simon,
On 2/23/07, Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If this is standards-breaking as you say, I would withdraw immediately.
I checked the SQL standard and could not see how this would do so. The
standard states SELECT * would return columns in order; it doesn't say
what that order should
If this is standards-breaking as you say, I would withdraw
immediately.
I checked the SQL standard and could not see how this would do so.
The
standard states SELECT * would return columns in order; it doesn't
say
Imho the create table order is implied. What other order would they mean
On Fri, 2007-02-23 at 09:46 +0100, Guillaume Smet wrote:
Hi Simon,
On 2/23/07, Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If this is standards-breaking as you say, I would withdraw immediately.
I checked the SQL standard and could not see how this would do so. The
standard states SELECT *
Simon Riggs wrote:
I propose that at CREATE TABLE time, the column ordering is
re-ordered
so that the table columns are packed more efficiently. This would be
a
physical re-ordering, so that SELECT * and COPY without explicit
column
definitions would differ from the original CREATE TABLE
On 2/23/07, Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I had read that Phil had declined to work on it further; I hope he
changes his mind on that.
IIRC he just said he wasn't interested to work on the visible ordering
part (as in MySQL) and I don't think it's a problem as even if it's
related it's
Am Freitag, 23. Februar 2007 09:08 schrieb Simon Riggs:
If this is standards-breaking as you say, I would withdraw immediately.
I checked the SQL standard and could not see how this would do so. The
standard states SELECT * would return columns in order; it doesn't say
what that order should
On Fri, 2007-02-23 at 11:25 +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Am Freitag, 23. Februar 2007 09:08 schrieb Simon Riggs:
If this is standards-breaking as you say, I would withdraw immediately.
I checked the SQL standard and could not see how this would do so. The
standard states SELECT * would
Am Freitag, 23. Februar 2007 12:25 schrieb Simon Riggs:
My reading was that this was about constraints on columns, not the
columns themselves, when that phrase was taken in context. I take it you
think that reading was wrong?
I see nothing there that speaks of constraints.
--
Peter
Simon Riggs wrote:
On Fri, 2007-02-23 at 11:25 +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Am Freitag, 23. Februar 2007 09:08 schrieb Simon Riggs:
If this is standards-breaking as you say, I would withdraw immediately.
I checked the SQL standard and could not see how this would do so. The
standard
On Fri, 2007-02-23 at 07:52 -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
I really don't think that we can accept under any circumstances a
situation where something ... breaks:
Yes, I've accepted that, in response to Peter earlier today.
If you really want an interim solution, what about a builtin function
Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If this is standards-breaking as you say, I would withdraw immediately.
I checked the SQL standard and could not see how this would do so. The
standard states SELECT * would return columns in order; it doesn't say
what that order should be, nor does CREATE
On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 02:09:55PM +, Simon Riggs wrote:
If you really want an interim solution, what about a builtin function
that would explicitly mutate the definition and table contents (if any)
along the lines you want? (assuming that's lots less work than just
doing the whole
Jim C. Nasby wrote:
On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 02:09:55PM +, Simon Riggs wrote:
If you really want an interim solution, what about a builtin function
that would explicitly mutate the definition and table contents (if any)
along the lines you want? (assuming that's lots less work than
First, it would absolutely be best if we just got the full blown patch
into 8.3 and were done with it. I don't think anyone's arguing against
that... it's a question of what we can do if that can't happen (and it
does sound like the patch lost it's maintainer when the direction
changed towards
Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
Simon Riggs wrote:
If this is standards-breaking as you say, I would withdraw immediately.
I checked the SQL standard and could not see how this would do so. The
standard states SELECT * would return columns in order; it doesn't say
what that order should be,
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
Simon Riggs wrote:
If this is standards-breaking as you say, I would withdraw immediately.
I checked the SQL standard and could not see how this would do so. The
standard states SELECT * would return columns in order; it doesn't say
what that
Simon Riggs wrote:
I propose that at CREATE TABLE time, the column ordering is re-ordered
so that the table columns are packed more efficiently. This would be a
physical re-ordering, so that SELECT * and COPY without explicit column
definitions would differ from the original CREATE TABLE
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Simon Riggs wrote:
I propose that at CREATE TABLE time, the column ordering is re-ordered
so that the table columns are packed more efficiently. This would be a
physical re-ordering, so that SELECT * and COPY without explicit column
definitions would differ from
Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Given that we already seem to have a patch implementing a complete
solution
we do?
--
Gregory Stark
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 7: You can help
On Thu, 2007-02-22 at 23:49 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Simon Riggs wrote:
I propose that at CREATE TABLE time, the column ordering is re-ordered
so that the table columns are packed more efficiently. This would be a
physical re-ordering, so that SELECT * and
34 matches
Mail list logo
