Re: Propose RC1 for Friday ...

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Ross J(dot) Reedstrom" <reedstrm(at)rice(dot)edu>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Propose RC1 for Friday ...
Date: 2002-11-14 17:34:31
Message-ID: 1526.1037295271@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

"Ross J. Reedstrom" <reedstrm(at)rice(dot)edu> writes:
> Sorry to be a pest, but I'd like to re-raise the issue I brought up
> regarding a performance regression from 7.2.3, when subqueries are pulled
> up and merged with their parent.
> ...
> Tom was not excited about making the original change (we don't guarantee
> the order of WHERE clauses, which is what would be required for this to
> be a real fix), and is resisting changing it back, partly because neither
> order is the right thing. My argument is that we can't do the right thing
> right now, anyway (feature freeze), so let's put it back the way it was in
> the last stable release, so as not to break (o.k., dramatically slow down)
> existing queries.

Well, we could define it as a bug ;-) --- that is, a performance regression.
I'd be happier about adding a dozen lines of code to sort quals by
whether or not they contain a subplan than about flip-flopping on the
original patch. That would actually solve the class of problem you
exhibited, whereas the other is just a band-aid that happens to work for
your particular example.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2002-11-14 17:45:51 Re: create or replace view
Previous Message Bruno Wolff III 2002-11-14 17:22:59 Re: create or replace view