Re: Poor performance using CTE
От | Andrew Dunstan |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Poor performance using CTE |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 50ACE970.7050701@dunslane.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Poor performance using CTE (Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas@vmware.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Poor performance using CTE
|
Список | pgsql-performance |
On 11/21/2012 08:04 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > On 21.11.2012 01:53, Tom Lane wrote: >> I think the more interesting question is what cases wouldn't be covered >> by such a rule. Typically you need to use OFFSET 0 in situations where >> the planner has guessed wrong about costs or rowcounts, and I think >> people are likely using WITH for that as well. Should we be telling >> people that they ought to insert OFFSET 0 in WITH queries if they want >> to be sure there's an optimization fence? > > Yes, I strongly feel that we should. Writing a query using WITH often > makes it more readable. It would be a shame if people have to refrain > from using it, because the planner treats it as an optimization fence. > > If we're going to do it can we please come up with something more intuitive and much, much more documented than "OFFSET 0"? And if/when we do this we'll need to have big red warnings all over then release notes, since a lot of people I know will need to do some extensive remediation before moving to such a release. cheers andrew
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: