Re: Early WIP/PoC for inlining CTEs
От | Gavin Flower |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Early WIP/PoC for inlining CTEs |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 370b56e3-3d66-ba6e-6a94-6437e3eba5ad@archidevsys.co.nz обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Early WIP/PoC for inlining CTEs (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 25/07/18 11:10, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2018-07-24 18:03:43 -0500, Jeremy Finzel wrote: >> On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 5:28 PM Andrew Gierth <andrew@tao11.riddles.org.uk> >> wrote: >> [...] >>> In our environment we often want this to be a fence. For example it can [...] > This essentially has been discussed already: > http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/5351711493487900%40web53g.yandex.ru > > My read of the concensus (in which I am in the majority, so I might be > biased) is that we do want inlining to be the default. We were thinking > that it'd be necessary to provide a way to force inlining on the SQL > level for individual CTEs. > > >> Curious what other RDBMSs do here? > They largely inline by default. > > Greetings, > > Andres Freund > If I'd not read anything about CTE's being a fence, I would have implicitly assumed that they were optimised together with the main part of the SQL statement, and I suspect that is the case for most people. So I'm very much a favour of optimisation of CTE's being the default. Cheers, Gavin
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: