From: | Gavin Flower <GavinFlower(at)archidevsys(dot)co(dot)nz> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Jeremy Finzel <finzelj(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Early WIP/PoC for inlining CTEs |
Date: | 2018-07-24 23:50:12 |
Message-ID: | 370b56e3-3d66-ba6e-6a94-6437e3eba5ad@archidevsys.co.nz |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 25/07/18 11:10, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2018-07-24 18:03:43 -0500, Jeremy Finzel wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 5:28 PM Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk>
>> wrote:
>>
[...]
>>> In our environment we often want this to be a fence. For example it can
[...]
> This essentially has been discussed already:
> http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/5351711493487900%40web53g.yandex.ru
>
> My read of the concensus (in which I am in the majority, so I might be
> biased) is that we do want inlining to be the default. We were thinking
> that it'd be necessary to provide a way to force inlining on the SQL
> level for individual CTEs.
>
>
>> Curious what other RDBMSs do here?
> They largely inline by default.
>
> Greetings,
>
> Andres Freund
>
If I'd not read anything about CTE's being a fence, I would have
implicitly assumed that they were optimised together with the main part
of the SQL statement, and I suspect that is the case for most people.
So I'm very much a favour of optimisation of CTE's being the default.
Cheers,
Gavin
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2018-07-24 23:54:16 | Re: Early WIP/PoC for inlining CTEs |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2018-07-24 23:49:19 | Re: Early WIP/PoC for inlining CTEs |