From: | Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> |
---|---|
To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
Cc: | hannu(at)skype(dot)net, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Order by optimisations? |
Date: | 2005-07-15 02:36:00 |
Message-ID: | 42D72110.8010001@familyhealth.com.au |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> I assume that this is program generated SQL, as I hope a human would know
> better than to write this. In which case, isn't the answer to improve the
> generator rather than expect postgres to make up for its defficiencies?
Well, the issue in my case is we have user food diaries. Usually,
99.9999% of the time we pull up a single date of their diary. However,
for printing purposes we need a range.
It's a large query, so it's implemented as a simple PL/PSQL stored
procedure.
I was trying to avoid having to c&p the entire stored proc to make a
'range version'.
If PostgreSQL was smart enough to deal with a range of 1 day and a sort
on it efficiently, I'd just use the range stored proc exclusively....
Chris
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2005-07-15 02:39:37 | Re: Order by optimisations? |
Previous Message | Luke Lonergan | 2005-07-15 01:18:37 | Re: multibyte regression tests |