>Is that the one off gborg? It's broken because the equality function is
>marked volatile, and so the planner is afraid to try to use it for
>merging or hashing. (It's also not marked strict, which means you can
>trivially crash the backend by passing it a null ...)
Tom, you are a genius. I chan
for differing levels of paranoia, or
the status quo.
CG
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
>If packet_status is large, that seems like a perfectly reasonable plan
>to me. If not ... what data type is packet_uuid? Is its equality op
>marked mergeable or hashable?
It is of type uniqueidentifier ...
CREATE OPERATOR =(
PROCEDURE = uniqueidentifier_eq,
LEFTARG = uniqueidentifier,
- Original Message
From: Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: CG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 11:03:07 AM
Subject: Re: [SQL] Nested loops are killing throughput
CG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> -
Postgresql 8.1
I've tried turning off nested loops to see what the query planner would choose
instead of nested loops. It chose a hash join, and it still had a nested loop
in the mix! How can I entice the query planner to use a simpler join scheme?
What criteria is used to determine whether or
"select 1 where false" does indeed indicate an empty set. I was hoping for
something more elegant, but I'll take what I can get. :)
--- Bruno Wolff III <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 14:40:12 -0700,
> CG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
PostgreSQL 8.1
I've been trying to write a SQL prepare routine. One of the challenging
elements I'm running into is an empty set ...
"select foo from bar where foo in ? ;"
What if "?" is an set with zero elements? What is the proper value to use to
replace &q
Why would you then drop the index? Performance and storage issues? I imagine
that I would cluster the table at regular intervals to maintain the ordering,
so I'd need to to keep the index around, yes?
--- PFC <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> > Is it even possible to cluster a table based on th
Can you gurus think of a better strategy? :) (Please??) :)
CG
Sell on Yahoo! Auctions no fees. Bid on great items.
http://auctions.yahoo.com/
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP
tion 286000108 is still open
CONTEXT: PL/pgSQL function "dropif" line 6 at execute statement
... It makes sense. The select is still open when the table is going to be
dropped. I need a different strategy.
Please advise!
CG
__
10 matches
Mail list logo
