Re: Early WIP/PoC for inlining CTEs
От | Andreas Karlsson |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Early WIP/PoC for inlining CTEs |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 5715d93e-6ebc-be17-c2c3-56a873100a38@proxel.se обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Early WIP/PoC for inlining CTEs (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Early WIP/PoC for inlining CTEs
Re: Early WIP/PoC for inlining CTEs |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 1/18/19 9:34 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 10:48 AM Andreas Karlsson <andreas@proxel.se> wrote: >> On 1/11/19 8:10 PM, Robert Haas wrote: >>> WITH cte_name [[NOT] MATERIALIZED] AS (query) main_query... >> >> Hm, when would one want "NOT MATERIALIZED"? I am not sure I see the >> usefulness of forcing inlining other than if we by default do not inline >> when a CTE is referenced multiple times. > > When the planner materializes it, but the performance of the resulting > plan therefore sucks, I suppose. > > I don't feel super-strongly about this, and Tom is right that there > may be cases where materialization is just not practical due to > implementation restrictions. But it's not crazy to imagine that > inlining a multiply-referenced CTE might create opportunities for > optimization at each of those places, perhaps not the same ones in > each case, whereas materializing it results in doing extra work. I see. I have a minor biksheddish question about the syntax. You proposed: WITH cte_name [[NOT] MATERIALIZED] AS (query) main_query While Andrew proposed: WITH cte_name AS [[NOT] MATERIALIZED] (query) main_query Do people have any preference between these two? Andreas
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: