| From: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jim(at)nasby(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Craig A(dot) James" <cjames(at)modgraph-usa(dot)com>, Brian Herlihy <btherl(at)yahoo(dot)com(dot)au>, Postgresql Performance <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Simple join optimized badly? |
| Date: | 2006-10-10 14:07:03 |
| Message-ID: | 20061010140702.GB72517@nasby.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Mon, Oct 09, 2006 at 08:22:39PM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
> > Imagine I got run over by a train, and someone was reading my code.
> > Which would be easier for them to maintain: Code with weird SQL, or code
> > with sensible, well-written SQL and explicit hints?
>
> You forgot the most important option:
>
> Code with appropriate documentation about your weird SQL.
>
> If you document your code, your argument is moot.
You apparently didn't read the whole email. He said he did document his
code. But his point is still valid: obscure code is bad even with
documentation. Would you put something from the obfuscated C contest
into production with comments describing what it does, or would you just
write the code cleanly to begin with?
--
Jim Nasby jim(at)nasby(dot)net
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-10-10 14:14:48 | Re: Simple join optimized badly? |
| Previous Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2006-10-10 14:02:22 | Re: Simple join optimized badly? |