From: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jim(at)nasby(dot)net> |
Cc: | Tobias Brox <tobias(at)nordicbet(dot)com>, Chris Browne <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Simple join optimized badly? |
Date: | 2006-10-10 14:23:30 |
Message-ID: | 452BACE2.5010700@commandprompt.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 09, 2006 at 03:41:09PM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>>> One of the big problems with doing set enable_...=off is that there's no
>>> way to embed that into something like a view, so you're almost forced
>>> into putting into the application code itself, which makes matters even
>>> worse. If you could hint this within a query (maybe even on a per-table
>>> level), you could at least encapsulate that into a view.
>> You can easily pass multiple statements within a single exec() or push
>> it into an SPF.
>
> Unless I'm missing something, putting multiple statements in a single
> exec means you're messing with the application code. And you can't
> update a SRF (also means messing with the application code). Though, I
> suppose you could update a view that pulled from an SRF...
I always think of application code as outside the db. I was thinking
more in layers.
Joshua D. Drake
--
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2006-10-10 14:24:49 | Re: Simple join optimized badly? |
Previous Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2006-10-10 14:21:02 | Re: Simple join optimized badly? |