Say I have:
select foo (
select foo from bar1
union all
select foo from bar2
union all
select foo from bar3
...
) a order by foo desc limit X;
(and I can give you few other examples around the same 'note', say
with when foo=N in outer subselect)
Would anyone consider such
sigh.. I got curious. :P
On Feb 27, 2009, at 7:19 PM, James Pye wrote:
Well, that or force the user to call it explicitly.
Attached is the patch that I used to get the results below..
This is just a proof of concept, so it's quite lacking. Notably, it
doesn't even try to identify
Grzegorz Jaskiewicz g...@pointblue.com.pl writes:
Say I have:
select foo (
select foo from bar1
union all
select foo from bar2
union all
select foo from bar3
...
) a order by foo desc limit X;
(and I can give you few other examples around the same 'note', say with when
On 28 Feb 2009, at 11:37, Gregory Stark wrote:
Grzegorz Jaskiewicz g...@pointblue.com.pl writes:
Say I have:
select foo (
select foo from bar1
union all
select foo from bar2
union all
select foo from bar3
...
) a order by foo desc limit X;
(and I can give you few other examples around
Grzegorz Jaskiewicz g...@pointblue.com.pl writes:
On 28 Feb 2009, at 11:37, Gregory Stark wrote:
I posted a patch to look for an ordered path for members of a union a while
back but it still needed a fair amount of work before it was usable.
I belive limit it self can't be pushed down, but
James Pye wrote:
sigh.. I got curious. :P
On Feb 27, 2009, at 7:19 PM, James Pye wrote:
Well, that or force the user to call it explicitly.
Attached is the patch that I used to get the results below..
This is just a proof of concept, so it's quite lacking. Notably, it
doesn't even try to
The REL7_4 members of the buildfarm are all red this morning,
with this symptom in initdb:
creating template1 database in
/usr/src/pg/build-farm-2.17/build/REL7_4_STABLE/pgsql.18854/src/test/regress/./tmp_check/data/base/1...
ok
initializing pg_shadow... ok
enabling unlimited row size for
On Feb 28, 2009, at 7:53 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
This is entirely out of the question for 8.3, as it's a significant
change of behaviour.
Yep. Even with implicit prefixing, the semantics are very different.
What got me thinking about it was this:
I wrote:
I'll test again on some longer fragments since you don't seem convinced.
I set up a test with a much larger XML fragment - over 1Mb - basically
it's the English source of the SVN Turtle book.
The result is that the extra parsing cost is still pretty much unmeasurable:
On Fri, 2009-02-27 at 22:55 -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Hannu Krosing wrote:
Some of the functions, including some specified in the standard, produce
fragments. That's why we have the 'IS DOCUMENT' test.
But then you could use xmlfragments as the functions return
Hannu Krosing wrote:
Currently walmgr.py is doing everything from setting up replica to
getting up-to-last-second changes to slave's disk.
If walmgr.py and its cousins had good documentation there would possibly
be much greater acceptance of them.
cheers
andrew
--
Sent via
We seem to have acquired a cardinality() function with almost no
discussion, and it has semantics that are a bit surprising to me. I
should have thought cardinality(array) would be the total number of
elements in the array. Instead, it seems it is a synonym for
array_length(array,1). Is that
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 11:06 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
One other thought to roll around in your head: at the time that the
current add_path logic was designed, compare_pathkeys was ungodly
expensive, which is why the code tries to compare costs first.
We've since introduced the
13 matches
Mail list logo
