From: | Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Ansley, Michael" <Michael(dot)Ansley(at)intec(dot)co(dot)za> |
Cc: | "'pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org'" <pgsql-sql(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Good Optimization |
Date: | 1999-07-09 16:45:43 |
Message-ID: | 199907091645.MAA01183@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-sql |
[Charset iso-8859-1 unsupported, filtering to ASCII...]
> Hi, Bruce,
>
> I've only just picked up the thread on optimizations (I get the digest for
> the pgsql-sql list). I really feel that a lot of effort could be saved with
> some good benefits if a stored proc mechanism is put into place. Once that
> has been done, it can be used to store temporary plans (procedures) for
> ad-hoc queries which are released on the termination of the connection.
> However, I think that a lot of users will develop stored procs to replace a
> lot of their existing common SQL, in order to (partially) optimize their
> systems. Perhaps in the PREPARE statement we could add a facility to allow
> the user to specify the TTL of the cached proc for an ad-hoc query.
>
> When I talk about stored procs, I don't mean functions. We already have
> those. I mean procedures that are able to return a rowset. Just to make
> sure nobody gets the wrong idea.
Not sure why our functions can't return tuples.
> Also, has anything happened about the idea to get PG to cluster (somebody
> mentioned Beowulf)?
No one has mentioned this.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle
maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 1999-07-09 16:47:31 | Re: [SQL] Good Optimization |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 1999-07-09 14:24:05 | Re: [SQL] RewriteDefine.c : Rule size |