Re: [HACKERS] [PERFORM] Proposal: relaxing link between explicit JOINs and execution order

2003-01-25 Thread Tom Lane
Josh Berkus [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: How about: EXPLICIT_JOIN_MINIMUM and FROM_COLLAPSE_LIMIT I've implemented this using FROM_COLLAPSE_LIMIT and JOIN_COLLAPSE_LIMIT as the variable names. It'd be easy enough to change if someone comes up with better names. You can read updated

Re: [HACKERS] [PERFORM] Proposal: relaxing link between explicit JOINs and execution order

2003-01-22 Thread Sean Chittenden
There's been some recent discussion about the fact that Postgres treats explicit JOIN syntax as constraining the actual join plan, cf http://www.ca.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/7.3/postgres/explicit-joins.html This behavior was originally in there simply because of lack of time to

Re: [HACKERS] [PERFORM] Proposal: relaxing link between explicit JOINs and execution order

2003-01-22 Thread Tom Lane
Sean Chittenden [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: How about something that's runtime tunable via a SET/SHOW config var? Er, that's what I was talking about. I know this is a can of worms, but what about piggy backing on an Oracle notation and having an inline way of setting this inside of a comment?

Re: [HACKERS] [PERFORM] Proposal: relaxing link between explicit JOINs and execution order

2003-01-22 Thread Josh Berkus
Tom, I am very strongly in favor of this idea. I would personally prefer it if the Join collapsing parmeter could be set at query time through a SET statement, but will of course defer to the difficulty level in doing so. Comments? In particular, can anyone think of pithy names for these

Re: [HACKERS] [PERFORM] Proposal: relaxing link between explicit JOINs and execution order

2003-01-22 Thread Tom Lane
Josh Berkus [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I am very strongly in favor of this idea. I would personally prefer it if the Join collapsing parmeter could be set at query time through a SET statement, but will of course defer to the difficulty level in doing so. I guess I failed to make it clear