>>> Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [ a bit off-topic for the thread, but ... ] > > "Kevin Grittner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> I'll attach the query and plan. You'll note that the query looks a >> little odd, especially all the (1=1) tests. > > FWIW, it would be better to use "TRUE" as a placeholder in your > generated queries. I don't suppose this would make a huge percentage > difference in such complicated queries, but in and of itself there are > a lot of cycles spent to parse "1=1" and then reduce it to constant TRUE. Thanks, I'll put in a request for enhancement for our framework. (Not all databases we support handle boolean literals, so we need a few lines in our plugin layer.) In case anyone cares in terms of interpreting the timings I posted, on the server where I just tested this change, the average plan time dropped from 65.0 ms to 63.7 ms -- a 2% improvement. Eliminating "pretty" whitespace shaved off another 0.2 ms, or 0.3%. So, worth doing on our end as a tuning measure, but not a significant distortion in terms of the issues discussed on the thread. -Kevin
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
