Re: [HACKERS] CTE inlining
От | Gavin Flower |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] CTE inlining |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 2dab0187-42fe-3b43-eed9-921aca564ec2@archidevsys.co.nz обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] CTE inlining (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] CTE inlining
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 30/04/17 16:28, Tom Lane wrote: > Craig Ringer <craig.ringer@2ndquadrant.com> writes: >> - as you noted, it is hard to decide when it's worth inlining vs >> materializing for CTE terms referenced more than once. > [ raised eyebrow... ] Please explain why the answer isn't trivially > "never". > > There's already a pretty large hill to climb here in the way of > breaking peoples' expectations about CTEs being optimization > fences. Breaking the documented semantics about CTEs being > single-evaluation seems to me to be an absolute non-starter. > > regards, tom lane > > Could not each CTE be only evaluated once, but restricted (as far as is practicable) to the rows actually needed by the body of the SELECT? Cheers, Gavin
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: