Re: Proposing WITH ITERATIVE
От | Jeff Davis |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Proposing WITH ITERATIVE |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 2d6ac118a6d602a2a0b6cbe4f75bd54154cab26e.camel@j-davis.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Proposing WITH ITERATIVE ("Jonah H. Harris" <jonah.harris@gmail.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 2020-04-28 at 11:57 -0400, Jonah H. Harris wrote: > Yeah, in that specific case, one of the other implementations seems > to carry the counters along in the executor itself. But, as not all > uses of this functionality are iteration-count-based, I think that's > a little limiting. Using a terminator expression (of some kind) seems > most adaptable, I think. I'll give some examples of both types of > cases. In my experience, graph algorithms or other queries doing more specialized analysis tend to get pretty complex with lots of special cases. Users may want to express these algorithms in a more familiar language (R, Python, etc.), and to version the code (probably in an extension). Have you considered taking this to the extreme and implementing something like User-Defined Table Operators[1]? Or is there a motivation for writing such algorithms inline in SQL? Regards, Jeff Davis [1] http://www.vldb.org/conf/1999/P47.pdf
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: