Re: [HACKERS] RE: [GENERAL] Long update query ? (also Re: [GENERAL] CNF vs. DNF)
Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us>
From: Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us>
To: daveh@insightdist.com (David Hartwig)
Cc: taral@mail.utexas.edu, jwieck@debis.com, hackers@postgreSQL.org
Date: 1998-10-07T17:56:18Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers, pgsql-general
> The problem is that you cannot depend upon factoring to reduce these complex > statements. We need to retain a place holder (pointer) for each passed > parameter. Otherwise we need to re-(parse and plan) the statement before each > execution; thus, loosing one of the major benefits of PREPARE. I think we already have such a problem. When using optimization statistics, the optimizer checks the value of the constant to determine how many rows will be returned by a "x > 10" by looking at the min/max values for the column. Prepared queries where this value will change would make that a problem. -- Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle maillist@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000 + If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026