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

From Bruce Momjian
Subject Re: [HACKERS] RE: [GENERAL] Long update query ? (also Re: [GENERAL] CNF vs. DNF)
Date
Msg-id 199810021740.NAA15196@candle.pha.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to RE: [GENERAL] Long update query ? (also Re: [GENERAL] CNF vs. DNF)  ("Taral" <taral@mail.utexas.edu>)
List pgsql-hackers
[Charset iso-8859-1 unsupported, filtering to ASCII...]
> > > 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?

I certainly think we are heading in the direction for a good general
solution.


--
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://www.op.net/~candle
  maillist@candle.pha.pa.us            |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: jwieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck)
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] RE: [GENERAL] Long update query ? (also Re: [GENERAL] CNF vs. DNF)
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] RE: [GENERAL] Long update query ? (also Re: [GENERAL] CNF vs. DNF)