Re: Order by optimisations?

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

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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