From: | "Merlin Moncure" <merlin(dot)moncure(at)rcsonline(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: parameterized limit statements |
Date: | 2005-11-07 18:20:32 |
Message-ID: | 6EE64EF3AB31D5448D0007DD34EEB3417DD7F7@Herge.rcsinc.local |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> > ^^
> > If I hardcode $5 to any sub-ridiculous value, I get a proper index
plan.
> > Does your patch assume a limit of 1 or 10% of table rows?
>
> If it doesn't have a value for the parameter, it'll assume 10% of
table
> rows, which is what it's done for a long time if the LIMIT isn't
> reducible to a constant.
>
> I suspect the real issue here is that whatever you are doing doesn't
> give the planner a value to use for the parameter. IIRC, at the
moment
> the only way that that happens is if you use the unnamed-statement
> variation of the Parse/Bind/Execute protocol.
hm...I'm using named statements over ExecPrepared. I can also confirm
the results inside psql with prepare/execute. I can send you a test
case, but was just wondering if your change to makelimit was supposed to
address this case.
Merlin
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Chuck McDevitt | 2005-11-07 18:29:55 | Re: Another pgindent gripe |
Previous Message | Marc Munro | 2005-11-07 18:09:54 | Odd db lockup - investigation advice wanted |