From: | Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz <gryzman(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: left join with smaller table or index on (XXX is not null) to avoid upsert |
Date: | 2009-01-19 07:53:02 |
Message-ID: | 2f4958ff0901182353v1e6c8325s7dfa31666d6288@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
2009/1/19 Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com>:
> Submit a patch. :)
>
> But seriously, it's doing what you told it to do. There might be
> corner cases where you need a trigger to fire for a row on change, and
> short-circuiting could cause things to fail in unexpected ways.
as far as my little knowledge about pg goes, that would be just
another addition to planner. <daydreaming> Say - when there's more
than X % of value Y, and we do set column X to Y, it could add that
'where'. But what if we have more WHERE statements, and they are quite
contradictory, etc, etc. It could actually do more damage than good.
(yes, I do have quite few more 'against' than for)</daydreaming>
I wrote that previous email, while waiting for breakfast, so I guess
it wasn't the best idea in the world ;)
--
GJ
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Scott Marlowe | 2009-01-19 08:18:35 | Re: left join with smaller table or index on (XXX is not null) to avoid upsert |
Previous Message | Scott Marlowe | 2009-01-19 07:48:28 | Re: left join with smaller table or index on (XXX is not null) to avoid upsert |