| 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: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | 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 |