From: | David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Jim Finnerty <jfinnert(at)amazon(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Removing INNER JOINs |
Date: | 2017-12-12 21:47:44 |
Message-ID: | CAKJS1f8i4+-Hu5yD9Vhxw1LbQzsVgUVWTPkmHcuGs4eYvk3O_Q@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On 12 December 2017 at 02:38, Jim Finnerty <jfinnert(at)amazon(dot)com> wrote:
> If necessary, the planner could also check that the FK constraint is not
> DEFERRED, but if there are no volatile functions and the SELECT statement
> can't see an inconsistent state created by any other transaction, I think
> that just checking for volatile functions and not being inside a DML
> transaction would be sufficient.
>
> A further opportunity would be to apply this to any SELECT statement in a
> DML transaction, provided that there was no prior DML statement or statement
> containing a volatile function in the same transaction.
>
> We already have a redundant outer join optimization, and I've implemented
> the redundant inner join optimization in two other products before, so
> adding the additional logic to support the inner join case(s) sounds
> straightforward to me. Can anyone think of any other problem scenarios?
You should read over [1]. This was my attempt at doing this over 3
years ago. The thread might save you from going down some of the dead
ends that I ended up going down.
--
David Rowley http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Thomas Munro | 2017-12-12 22:30:01 | Re: transaction wrap around |
Previous Message | Thomas Munro | 2017-12-12 21:28:55 | Re: Size of pg_multixact/members increases 11355 |