So to implement recursive queries I think what we need is a memoizing node
like Materialize which allows multiple simultaneous readers.
Looking into how to implement this I find that the read position of a
Materialize node is actually implemented directly in tuplestore.c.
That means that tuples
The CONNECT BY patch from evgen potemkin has been ported to pg 8.2...
and it's now in BSD License...
I will test it on our test environement
Le jeudi 25 janvier 2007 à 11:08 +, Gregory Stark a écrit :
> Hm, having skimmed through the Evgen Potemkin's recursive queries patch I find
> it quit
Le jeudi 25 janvier 2007 à 12:12 -0500, Gregory Stark a écrit :
> "Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > > That's basically how the existing patch approached the problem. It
> > > invents a
> > > new type of join and a new type of tuplestore that behaves this way. This
> > > has
>
"Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > That's basically how the existing patch approached the problem. It invents a
> > new type of join and a new type of tuplestore that behaves this way. This
> > has
> > the advantage of working the way Oracle users expect and being relatively
> > s
Gregory Stark wrote:
> "Martijn van Oosterhout" writes:
>
>> On Thu, Jan 25, 2007 at 11:08:14AM +, Gregory Stark wrote:
>>> b) I do want to be able to support depth-first searching too. I'm not sure
>>> how
>>> to reconcile that with the repeated-join conceptual model. We could always
>>> re
"Martijn van Oosterhout" writes:
> On Thu, Jan 25, 2007 at 11:08:14AM +, Gregory Stark wrote:
>> b) I do want to be able to support depth-first searching too. I'm not sure
>> how
>> to reconcile that with the repeated-join conceptual model. We could always
>> resort the entire result set aft
On Thu, Jan 25, 2007 at 11:08:14AM +, Gregory Stark wrote:
> b) I do want to be able to support depth-first searching too. I'm not sure how
> to reconcile that with the repeated-join conceptual model. We could always
> resort the entire result set after generating it but that seems like an
> un
Ühel kenal päeval, N, 2007-01-25 kell 11:08, kirjutas Gregory Stark:
> Hm, having skimmed through the Evgen Potemkin's recursive queries patch I find
> it quite different from what I was expecting. My own thinking was headed off
> in a different direction.
>
> Basically the existing patch reimplem
Hm, having skimmed through the Evgen Potemkin's recursive queries patch I find
it quite different from what I was expecting. My own thinking was headed off
in a different direction.
Basically the existing patch reimplements a new kind of join which implements
a kind of nested loop join (with newe
The only code that is usable (and performant) is the CONNECT BY patch
made by Evgen Potemkin, It works on production servers on the 8.1.5
I hope that a WITH RECURSIVE will be in the 8.3... but I don't see
anybody working on this... (what a shame...)
Le mercredi 24 janvier 2007 à 17:27 +, Gr
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Wasn't somebody else working on this? Jonah? (Maybe you EDB guys need to
talk more ...)
He is taking it over for Jonah.
Oh, good. That was the piece of missing info. I had a case just
yesterday where this feature would have saved us hours of writing client
code
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> Gregory Stark wrote:
> > I'm looking into recursive queries and what it would take to support them in
> > Postgres. Is anyone else looking at this already?
> >
> > Aside from the Oracle-ish syntax were there other objections to the patch as
> > posted a while back for 7.3 by
Gregory Stark wrote:
I'm looking into recursive queries and what it would take to support them in
Postgres. Is anyone else looking at this already?
Aside from the Oracle-ish syntax were there other objections to the patch as
posted a while back for 7.3 by Evgen Potemkin?
I have some ideas mysel
Gregory Stark wrote:
> I'm looking into recursive queries and what it would take to support them in
> Postgres. Is anyone else looking at this already?
Yes your co-employee Jonah.
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2007-01/msg00989.php
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
--
=== The Post
I'm looking into recursive queries and what it would take to support them in
Postgres. Is anyone else looking at this already?
Aside from the Oracle-ish syntax were there other objections to the patch as
posted a while back for 7.3 by Evgen Potemkin?
I have some ideas myself for how to go about
Michael Meskes wrote:
> Just wanted to let you know that if we would be interested in adding
> that patch to our main cvs the guy who wrote it would be more than
> willing to change his license to BSD.
I was under the impression we wanted to implement the ANSI way to do
this. Is this what the pat
hi again,
at last i found patch for WITH and make it working.
it's resides in attach.
what it does:
WITH a AS (SELECT * FROM t) SELECT * FROM a;
WITH a AS (SELECT * FROM t), b as (SELECT * FROM t) SELECT * FROM
a.id=b.id;
WITH a AS (SELECT * FROM t), b AS (SELECT * FROM a) SELECT * FROM b;
where
Just wanted to let you know that if we would be interested in adding
that patch to our main cvs the guy who wrote it would be more than
willing to change his license to BSD.
Michael
--
Michael Meskes
Email: Michael at Fam-Meskes dot De
ICQ: 179140304, AIM/Yahoo: michaelmeskes, Jabber: [EMAIL PROT
evgen wrote:
hello hackers,
some time ago i played with PgSQL and have written simpliest working
prototype of WITH clause for it.
it don't do any checks and performs only simpliest selects, but it works.
i can contribute it and develop it further to production state.
regards,
.evgen
I suggest
hello hackers,
some time ago i played with PgSQL and have written simpliest working
prototype of WITH clause for it.
it don't do any checks and performs only simpliest selects, but it works.
i can contribute it and develop it further to production state.
regards,
.evgen
-
Neil,
> Granted, the primary goal should be implementing the SQL99 syntax, but
> providing syntax-level compatibility with Oracle's syntax (provided it
> isn't too difficult) seems like a good idea to me.
I don't agree. There are lots of non-standard things which Oracle does (outer
joins come t
Josh Berkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think that's as far as we want to go implementing Oracle's syntax
Why do you think that?
> If we're to implement recursive queries, we should implement the
> SQL99 standard.
Granted, the primary goal should be implementing the SQL99 syntax, but
providi
Chris, Robert
> As a side note, I thought Joe Conway also had an implementation of
> this...
Yes, we already have a connect_by function, and have had since 7.3. Look
in /contrib/tablefuc.
I think that's as far as we want to go implementing Oracle's syntax, though
*external* patches are of
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Hans-J=FCrgen_Sch=F6nig?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In my very personal opinion (don't cut my head off) I'd vote for both
> syntaxes.
I'm not opposed to that, although it would be a good idea to check that
Oracle doesn't have some patent covering their syntax.
However, if we g
Tom Lane wrote:
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Hans-J=FCrgen_Sch=F6nig?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Does this patch have a serious chance to make it into Pg some day?
I think Oracle's syntax is not perfect but is easy to handle and many
people are used to it. In people's mind recursive queries = CONNECT BY
and
Christopher Browne kirjutas K, 04.02.2004 kell 15:10:
> The fact that the form of this resembles that of the Lisp/ML "let"
> forms means that WITH can be useful in structuring queries as well.
> For instance, supposing you're computing a value that gets used
> several times, putting it into a WITH
Tom Lane kirjutas K, 04.02.2004 kell 06:04:
> Christopher Kings-Lynne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Wasn't there some guy at RedHat doing it?
>
> Andrew Overholt did some work on SQL99 recursive queries, but went back
> to university without having gotten to the point where it actually
> worked.
Robert Treat kirjutas K, 04.02.2004 kell 16:55:
> Seems it has no chance of getting in as it is GPL'd code... so step one
> would be convincing him to relicense it.
>
> As a side note, I thought Joe Conway also had an implementation of
> this...
IIRC Joe Conway had the simple join-by-parent-id
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Hans-J=FCrgen_Sch=F6nig?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Does this patch have a serious chance to make it into Pg some day?
> I think Oracle's syntax is not perfect but is easy to handle and many
> people are used to it. In people's mind recursive queries = CONNECT BY
> and many peo
On Wed, 2004-02-04 at 05:28, Hans-Jürgen Schönig wrote:
> Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> >> There is a website somewhere where a guy posts his patch he is
> >> maintaining that does it. I'll try to find it...
> >
> >
> > Found it. Check it out:
> >
> > http://gppl.terminal.ru/index.eng.html
Clinging to sanity, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andrew Rawnsley) mumbled into her beard:
> I haven't had any problems with it so far, although I haven't really
> stressed it yet. I was going to make this very plea...
>
> I agree that the syntax can probably be improved, but its familiar to
> those of us un
I haven't had any problems with it so far, although I haven't really
stressed it yet. I was going to make this very plea...
I agree that the syntax can probably be improved, but its familiar to
those of us unfortunate enough to have used (or still have to use)
Oracle. I imagine that bringing it
Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
There is a website somewhere where a guy posts his patch he is
maintaining that does it. I'll try to find it...
Found it. Check it out:
http://gppl.terminal.ru/index.eng.html
Patch is current for 7.4, Oracle syntax.
Chris
I had a look at the patch.
It is sti
There is a website somewhere where a guy posts his patch he is
maintaining that does it. I'll try to find it...
Found it. Check it out:
http://gppl.terminal.ru/index.eng.html
Patch is current for 7.4, Oracle syntax.
Chris
---(end of broadcast)-
Andrew Overholt did some work on SQL99 recursive queries, but went back
to university without having gotten to the point where it actually
worked. One of the many things on my to-do list is to pick up and
finish Andrew's work on this. If someone has time to work on it,
let me know and I'll try to
Christopher Kings-Lynne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Wasn't there some guy at RedHat doing it?
Andrew Overholt did some work on SQL99 recursive queries, but went back
to university without having gotten to the point where it actually
worked. One of the many things on my to-do list is to pick up
Is there anyone working on recursive queries for 7.5? I know there is a
patch that implements it on 7.4 (I can't seem to find the guy's
webpage), but that uses Oracle syntax.
Wasn't there some guy at RedHat doing it? Is RedHat working on PITR?
Chris
---(end of broadc
Tom Lane once said:
> "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> Andrew Overholt of Red Hat has been working
> >> on this, but is certainly not going to make the Tuesday feature-freeze
> >> deadline.
>
> > I was just wondering who was working on it and what the progress was...? It
"Christopher Kings-Lynne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Andrew Overholt of Red Hat has been working
>> on this, but is certainly not going to make the Tuesday feature-freeze
>> deadline.
> I was just wondering who was working on it and what the progress was...? It
> seemed to me that it must hav
> If you mean SQL99 WITH clauses, approximately zero ... unless you
> had an implementation you were planning to whip out of your hip
> pocket along about now. Andrew Overholt of Red Hat has been working
> on this, but is certainly not going to make the Tuesday feature-freeze
> deadline.
I was ju
"Christopher Kings-Lynne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What's the chances of getting recursive queries in for 7.4?
If you mean SQL99 WITH clauses, approximately zero ... unless you
had an implementation you were planning to whip out of your hip
pocket along about now. Andrew Overholt of Red Hat
What's the chances of getting recursive queries in for 7.4?
Chris
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your
joining column's datatypes do not match
42 matches
Mail list logo