RE: [HACKERS] RE: [GENERAL] Long update query ? (also Re: [GENERAL] CNF vs. DNF) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Taral
Subject RE: [HACKERS] RE: [GENERAL] Long update query ? (also Re: [GENERAL] CNF vs. DNF)
Date
Msg-id 000201bdee50$9d9c4320$3b291f0a@taral
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] RE: [GENERAL] Long update query ? (also Re: [GENERAL] CNF vs. DNF)  (Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] RE: [GENERAL] Long update query ? (also Re: [GENERAL] CNF vs. DNF)
Re: [HACKERS] RE: [GENERAL] Long update query ? (also Re: [GENERAL] CNF vs. DNF)
List pgsql-hackers
> How do we do that with UNION, and return the right rows.  Seems the
> _join_ happending multiple times would be much worse than the factoring.

Ok... We have two problems:

1) DNF for unjoined queries.
2) Factorization for the rest.

I have some solutions for (1). Not for (2). Remember that unjoined queries
are quite common. :)

For (1), we can always try to parallel the multiple queries... especially in
the case where a sequential search is required.

Taral


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Open 6.4 items
Next
From: "Taral"
Date:
Subject: RE: [HACKERS] RE: [GENERAL] Long update query ? (also Re: [GENERAL] CNF vs. DNF)