Re: [HACKERS] Performance testing of COPY (SELECT) TO

>>> Remember that we were talking about supporting views, not tables.  And
>>> if a view uses a slow query then you are in immediate danger of having a
>>> slow COPY.  This may not be a problem but it needs to be discussed and
>>> an agreement must be reached before introducing such a change (and not
>>> during feature freeze).
>>>
>> COPY relname TO meant tables _and_ views to me.
>> My previous tsting showed no difference between
>> COPY table TO and COPY (SELECT * FROM table) TO.
>> Similarly a slow query defined in the view should show
>> no difference between COPY view TO and
>> COPY (SELECT * FROM view) TO.
>>
>
> The difference is that we are giving a very clear distinction between a
> table and a view.  If we don't support the view in the direct COPY, but
> instead insist that it be passed via a SELECT query, then the user will
> be aware that it may be slow.
>

what kind of clever customers do you have in the US? ;) i would never
say something like that here :).
i see your point and i think it is not a too bad idea. at least some
folks might see that there is no voodoo going on ...

> "relname" at this point may mean anything -- are you supporting
> sequences and toast tables as well?
>
>

good point ...

>
>
> It's ugly because you are forcing the system to parse something that
> was already parsed.
>

definitely an argument for dropping the view stuff ...

> On the other hand I don't see why you are arguing in favor of a useless
> feature whose coding is dubious; you can have _the same thing_ with nice
> code and no discussion.
>
>

what are you referring to?

    hans


--
Cybertec Geschwinde & Schönig GmbH
Schöngrabern 134; A-2020 Hollabrunn
Tel: +43/1/205 10 35 / 340
www.postgresql.at, www.cybertec.at