| Hannu Krosing 2005-08-11, 1:28 pm |
| On K, 2005-08-10 at 17:39 -0400, Christopher Browne wrote:
> Hannu Krosing <hannu-7C/ iILuz2RdeoWH0uzbU5w@
public.gmane.org> writes:
>
> I have a patch that passes the "test_1_pgbench" test, which definitely
> exercises it. (Albeit not with Just Insanely Big Queries...)
>
> If the set of "actionseq" values are being returned in random order,
> it won't turn out terribly well, but if they are in even a fairly
> approximate ordering, it'll be a BIG help. And it looks as though
> they are returned more or less in order.
I think that expanding "NOT IN (...)" into a list of 'AND
log_actionseq != NNNNN' is what postgres query does anyway, so any of
these won't make things worse and any 'AND log_actionseq BETWEEN MMM AND
LLL' mixed in will reduce plan size and complexity.
> I'd like for someone else to "use this patch in anger" before I
> consider adding it into CVS HEAD.
I am quite busy right now, but I'll see if I can find some time tomorrow
to check it out.
Thanks :)
--
Hannu Krosing <hannu-7C/ iILuz2RdeoWH0uzbU5w@
public.gmane.org>
|