| From: | Peter Geoghegan <peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, David Greco <David_Greco(at)harte-hanks(dot)com>, "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: SOLVED - RE: Poor performance using CTE |
| Date: | 2012-11-15 02:03:24 |
| Message-ID: | CAEYLb_XLgrFBMM5Ce9ZBoa0K+NY1hpFXyvXeaf6yWbHOjn3-3g@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On 15 November 2012 01:46, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> wrote:
> It cuts both ways. I have used CTEs a LOT precisely because this behaviour
> lets me get better plans. Without that I'll be back to using the "offset 0"
> hack.
Is the "OFFSET 0" hack really so bad? We've been telling people to do
that for years, so it's already something that we've effectively
committed to.
--
Peter Geoghegan http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Sergio Mayoral | 2012-11-15 09:02:57 | PQconnectStart/PQconnectPoll |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2012-11-15 01:46:37 | Re: SOLVED - RE: Poor performance using CTE |