Hello
2008/7/29 Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org>:
> On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 07:57:16PM +0100, Andrew Gierth wrote:
>> Which will be a serious pessimization in many common cases if you do
>> it all the time. Googling for examples of non-recursive WITH queries
>> shows that it is very widely used for clarity or convenience, in
>> contexts where you _don't_ want materialization.
>
> Since the problem is using the result of a WITH clause more than once,
> would it be sufficient to simply detect that case and bail? You don't
> want materialisation is most cases, there's just a few where it is
> needed.
>
I thing so materialisation is more important than you thing. Without
materialisation I could use derived tables, but materialisation in
WITH statement is unique feature usefull for analytical queries. I am
sure, so materialisation should be one from possible strategies.
I like to see this feature in core, with/without materialisation is
usefull for recursive queries and I thing so materialisation should be
add in next months. I don't see it as mayor break. I prefere early
commit of this patch (with neccessary documentation), because there
will be some work that cannot be commited concurently - analytic
queries and my implementation of rollup and cube operator.
Regards
Pavel Stehule
> Have a nice day,
> --
> Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org> http://svana.org/kleptog/
>> Please line up in a tree and maintain the heap invariant while
>> boarding. Thank you for flying nlogn airlines.
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iD8DBQFIjkcuIB7bNG8LQkwRAto4AJwPkKlCWD/yBjAyEBL/LXMLK08LPwCfZ2dq
> qSHGPoPPGwGIQOP62eQimGE=
> =Yog+
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
