On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 11:06 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> One other thought to roll around in your head: at the time that the
> current add_path logic was designed, compare_pathkeys was ungodly
> expensive, which is why the code tries to compare costs first.
> We've since introduced the "canonical pathk
We seem to have acquired a cardinality() function with almost no
discussion, and it has semantics that are a bit surprising to me. I
should have thought cardinality(array) would be the total number of
elements in the array. Instead, it seems it is a synonym for
array_length(array,1). Is that
Hannu Krosing wrote:
Currently walmgr.py is doing everything from setting up replica to
getting up-to-last-second changes to slave's disk.
If walmgr.py and its cousins had good documentation there would possibly
be much greater acceptance of them.
cheers
andrew
--
Sent via pgsql-hack
On Fri, 2009-02-27 at 22:55 -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
> Hannu Krosing wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Some of the functions, including some specified in the standard, produce
> >> fragments. That's why we have the 'IS DOCUMENT' test.
> >>
> >
> > But then you could use xmlfragments as
I wrote:
I'll test again on some longer fragments since you don't seem convinced.
I set up a test with a much larger XML fragment - over 1Mb - basically
it's the English source of the SVN Turtle book.
The result is that the extra parsing cost is still pretty much unmeasurable:
regres
On Feb 28, 2009, at 7:53 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
This is entirely out of the question for 8.3, as it's a significant
change of behaviour.
Yep. Even with implicit prefixing, the semantics are very different.
What got me thinking about it was this:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-bugs
The REL7_4 members of the buildfarm are all red this morning,
with this symptom in initdb:
creating template1 database in
/usr/src/pg/build-farm-2.17/build/REL7_4_STABLE/pgsql.18854/src/test/regress/./tmp_check/data/base/1...
ok
initializing pg_shadow... ok
enabling unlimited row size for system
James Pye wrote:
sigh.. I got curious. :P
On Feb 27, 2009, at 7:19 PM, James Pye wrote:
Well, that or force the user to call it explicitly.
Attached is the patch that I used to get the results below..
This is just a proof of concept, so it's quite lacking. Notably, it
doesn't even try to
Grzegorz Jaskiewicz writes:
> On 28 Feb 2009, at 11:37, Gregory Stark wrote:
>>
>> I posted a patch to look for an ordered path for members of a union a while
>> back but it still needed a fair amount of work before it was usable.
>>
> I belive limit it self can't be pushed down, but with order
On 28 Feb 2009, at 11:37, Gregory Stark wrote:
Grzegorz Jaskiewicz writes:
Say I have:
select foo (
select foo from bar1
union all
select foo from bar2
union all
select foo from bar3
...
) a order by foo desc limit X;
(and I can give you few other examples around the same 'note', say
Grzegorz Jaskiewicz writes:
> Say I have:
>
> select foo (
> select foo from bar1
> union all
> select foo from bar2
> union all
> select foo from bar3
> ...
> ) a order by foo desc limit X;
>
>
> (and I can give you few other examples around the same 'note', say with when
> foo=N in ou
sigh.. I got curious. :P
On Feb 27, 2009, at 7:19 PM, James Pye wrote:
Well, that or force the user to call it explicitly.
Attached is the patch that I used to get the results below..
This is just a proof of concept, so it's quite lacking. Notably, it
doesn't even try to identify well-forme
Say I have:
select foo (
select foo from bar1
union all
select foo from bar2
union all
select foo from bar3
...
) a order by foo desc limit X;
(and I can give you few other examples around the same 'note', say
with when foo=N in outer subselect)
Would anyone consider such optimizat
13 matches
Mail list logo
