From: | Brian Hirt <bhirt(at)mobygames(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | bhirt(at)mobygames(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Slow - grindingly slow - query |
Date: | 1999-11-12 18:02:07 |
Message-ID: | 19991112120207.A27778@loopy.berkhirt.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Nov 12, 1999 at 09:58:14AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Brian Hirt <bhirt(at)mobygames(dot)com> writes:
> > Can't the rewrite engine recognize a simple case like the
> > one above and rewrite it to use exists and not exists with the proper
> > joins? Or possibly the optimizer can generate a better plan?
>
> This is on the TODO list, and will get done someday. IMHO it's not as
> urgent as a lot of the planner/optimizer's other shortcomings, because
> it can usually be worked around by revising the query.
>
> If it's bugging you enough to go fix it now, contributions are always
> welcome ;-)
>
Okay, what would be the correct approach to solving the problem,
and where would be a good place to start? I'v only been on this list
for a few weeks, so I'm missed discussion on the approach to solving
this problem. Should this change be localized to just the planner?
Should the rewrite system be creating a different query tree? Will both
need to be changed? If a lot of work is being done to this part of
the system, is now a bad time to try this work?
I'm willing to jump in to this, but I may take a while to figure it out
and ask a lot of questions that are obvious to the hardened postgres
programmer. I'm not famaliar with the postgres code, yet.
-brian
--
The world's most ambitious and comprehensive PC game database project.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Don Baccus | 1999-11-12 18:09:57 | Re: [HACKERS] compression in LO and other fields |
Previous Message | gov-boi | 1999-11-12 17:32:13 | www.hack.co.za - exploit archives updates - 0day |