| From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone(dot)bigpanda(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Dani Oderbolz <oderbolz(at)ecologic(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [SQL] "SELECT IN" Still Broken in 7.4b |
| Date: | 2003-08-21 21:19:47 |
| Message-ID: | 200308211419.47226.josh@agliodbs.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-sql |
Tom,
> I'm toying with the notion of ripping out that logic and instead
> building an in-memory hashtable of already-returned TIDs. This could
> theoretically run out of memory if the multiple indexscan returns enough
> tuples, but I think in practice that wouldn't happen because the planner
> wouldn't choose an indexscan when very large numbers of tuples are being
> selected.
Don't forget all of the tyros who tune their queries through "set
enable_seqscan=false". I think we'd need some kind of memory safety valve on
this, like sandboxing it in sort_mem.
--
-Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephan Szabo | 2003-08-21 21:29:54 | Re: postgresql 7.3.2 bug on date '1901-12-13' and '1901-12 |
| Previous Message | Manfred Koizar | 2003-08-21 21:18:04 | Re: [SQL] "SELECT IN" Still Broken in 7.4b |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-08-21 21:46:03 | Re: [SQL] "SELECT IN" Still Broken in 7.4b |
| Previous Message | Manfred Koizar | 2003-08-21 21:18:04 | Re: [SQL] "SELECT IN" Still Broken in 7.4b |