Gregory Stark írta:
"Martijn van Oosterhout" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
From an implementation point of view, the only difference between
breadth-first and depth-first is that your tuplestore needs to be LIFO
instead of FIFO.
I think it's not so simple. How do you reconcile that con
"Martijn van Oosterhout" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> From an implementation point of view, the only difference between
> breadth-first and depth-first is that your tuplestore needs to be LIFO
> instead of FIFO.
I think it's not so simple. How do you reconcile that concept with the join
plans l
On Sun, 2008-05-18 at 22:17 -0700, David Fetter wrote:
> On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 12:21:20AM -0400, Gregory Stark wrote:
> > "Zoltan Boszormenyi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > Also, it seems there are no infinite recursion detection:
> > >
> > > # with recursive x(level, parent, child) as (
> >
Martijn van Oosterhout írta:
On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 11:56:17AM +0200, Zoltan Boszormenyi wrote:
>From an implementation point of view, the only difference between
breadth-first and depth-first is that your tuplestore needs to be LIFO
instead of FIFO.
Are you sure? I think a LIF
On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 11:56:17AM +0200, Zoltan Boszormenyi wrote:
> >From an implementation point of view, the only difference between
> >breadth-first and depth-first is that your tuplestore needs to be LIFO
> >instead of FIFO.
>
> Are you sure? I think a LIFO tuplestore would simply return rev
Martijn van Oosterhout írta:
On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 08:19:17AM +0200, Zoltan Boszormenyi wrote:
The standard has a clause to specify depth-first order. However doing a
depth-first traversal would necessitate quite a different looking plan and
it's far less obvious (to me anyways) how to do i
Martijn van Oosterhout írta:
On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 08:19:17AM +0200, Zoltan Boszormenyi wrote:
The standard has a clause to specify depth-first order. However doing a
depth-first traversal would necessitate quite a different looking plan and
it's far less obvious (to me anyways) how to do i
On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 08:19:17AM +0200, Zoltan Boszormenyi wrote:
> >The standard has a clause to specify depth-first order. However doing a
> >depth-first traversal would necessitate quite a different looking plan and
> >it's far less obvious (to me anyways) how to do it.
>
> That would be even
Gregory Stark írta:
This is indeed really cool. I'm sorry I haven't gotten to doing what I
promised in this area but I'm glad it's happening anyways.
"Zoltan Boszormenyi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Can we get the rows in tree order, please?
...
After all, I didn't specify any ORDER BY cl
This is indeed really cool. I'm sorry I haven't gotten to doing what I
promised in this area but I'm glad it's happening anyways.
"Zoltan Boszormenyi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Can we get the rows in tree order, please?
>...
> After all, I didn't specify any ORDER BY clauses in the base, r
"David Fetter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 12:21:20AM -0400, Gregory Stark wrote:
>> "Zoltan Boszormenyi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > Also, it seems there are no infinite recursion detection:
>> >
>> > # with recursive x(level, parent, child) as (
>> >select 1::i
On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 12:21:20AM -0400, Gregory Stark wrote:
> "Zoltan Boszormenyi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Also, it seems there are no infinite recursion detection:
> >
> > # with recursive x(level, parent, child) as (
> >select 1::integer, * from test_connect_by where parent is null
12 matches
Mail list logo
