Re: SOLVED - RE: Poor performance using CTE - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Gavin Flower
Subject Re: SOLVED - RE: Poor performance using CTE
Date
Msg-id 50A533C9.9000701@archidevsys.co.nz
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: SOLVED - RE: Poor performance using CTE  (Peter Geoghegan <peter@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: SOLVED - RE: Poor performance using CTE  (Vitalii Tymchyshyn <tivv00@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-performance
On 15/11/12 15:03, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On 15 November 2012 01:46, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> wrote:
>> It cuts both ways. I have used CTEs a LOT precisely because this behaviour
>> lets me get better plans. Without that I'll be back to using the "offset 0"
>> hack.
> Is the "OFFSET 0" hack really so bad? We've been telling people to do
> that for years, so it's already something that we've effectively
> committed to.
>
How about adding the keywords FENCED and NOT FENCED to the SQL
definition of CTE's - with FENCED being the default?


Cheers,
Gavin



pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Antti Jokipii
Date:
Subject: Query that uses lots of memory in PostgreSQL 9.2.1 in Windows 7
Next
From: Pavel Stehule
Date:
Subject: Re: Query that uses lots of memory in PostgreSQL 9.2.1 in Windows 7