makes with that of the
main function.
--
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can't prove anything.
-- Gödel's Incompetence Theorem
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
the identical massively-overloaded union struct to refer
to every node.
If we do subclassing like this:
struct Node { ... };
struct Value { struct Node; ... };
etc.
do we still run into the alias problem?
--
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can't prove anything.
-- Gödel's Incompetence Theorem
On 4/27/06, Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If we do subclassing like this:
struct Node { ... };
struct Value { struct Node; ... };
etc.
do we still run into the alias problem?
Nope, it appears to get rid of the alias problem completely. But it
requires anonymous structure support (C99
a noticeable difference or not...
--
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can't prove anything.
-- Gödel's Incompetence Theorem
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
to the derived structure before
assigning the tag: Minor code change, makes assumptions about derived
structures.
3. Get configure to select cc instead of xlc: No code change,
loses some performance.
--
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can't prove anything.
-- Gödel's Incompetence Theorem
.
4. Find the option for disabling strict alias and get configure to add
that.
You'll still lose performance, but the option is -qalias=noansi.
--
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can't prove anything.
-- Gödel's Incompetence Theorem
---(end of broadcast
On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 11:23:47AM -0600, Taral wrote:
Yes, that's exactly it. It's an index _scan_. It should simply be able
to read the maximum straight from the btree.
Still doesn't work, even with rewritten query. It sort a
Limit(Sort(Index Scan)), with 1333 rows being pulled from the index
On Sat, Mar 15, 2003 at 09:23:28AM -0600, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 14:19:46 -0600,
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Same setup, different query:
test= explain select max(time) from test where id = '1';
NOTICE: QUERY PLAN:
Aggregate (cost=5084.67..5084.67
to
retrieve the maximum value?
On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 03:10:49PM -0600, Taral wrote:
I have a table test that looks like this:
CREATE TABLE test (
id BIGINT,
time INTEGER
);
There is an index:
CREATE INDEX idx ON test(id, time);
The table has been loaded with 2M rows, where
of usefulness...
I don't think so, since even in the non-limit case it avoids having to
do a full sort if the number of initial streams is finite and small (as
in the case I demonstrated), reducing time complexity to O(N).
--
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This message is digitally signed. Please PGP
I tried general, but no response. Anyone here can shed some light on the
issue? Do I need to code merge sort into postgresql?
- Forwarded message from Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
From: Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 17:54:35 -0600
Subject: [GENERAL
techniques, so that the output
ordering of the scans couldn't be counted on anyway.
I don't understand this. What do these bitmap techniques do?
--
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This message is digitally signed. Please PGP encrypt mail to me.
Most parents have better things to do with their time than take
from disk.
--
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This message is digitally signed. Please PGP encrypt mail to me.
Most parents have better things to do with their time than take care of
their children. -- Me
pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
13 matches
Mail list logo
