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

From Taral
Subject RE: [GENERAL] Long update query ? (also Re: [GENERAL] CNF vs. DNF)
Date
Msg-id 000301bdee24$63308740$3b291f0a@taral
Whole thread Raw
In response to 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
> > Create a temporary oid hash? (for each table selected on, I guess)
>
> What I did with indexes was to run the previous OR clause index
> restrictions through the qualification code, and make sure it failed,
> but I am not sure how that is going to work with a more complex WHERE
> clause.  Perhaps I need to restrict this to just simple cases of
> constants, which are easy to pick out an run through.  Doing this with
> joins would be very hard, I think.

Actually, I was thinking more of an index of returned rows... After each
subquery, the backend would check each row to see if it was already in the
index... Simple duplicate check, in other words. Of course, I don't know how
well this would behave with large tables being returned...

Anyone else have some ideas they want to throw in?

Taral


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Long update query ? (also Re: [GENERAL] CNF vs. DNF)
Next
From: "Thomas G. Lockhart"
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] patching utilities?