Horton

Re: patch: SQL/MED(FDW) DDL

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

View thread
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Shigeru HANADA <hanada@metrosystems.co.jp>, Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki.takahiro@gmail.com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>, SAKAMOTO Masahiko <sakamoto.masahiko@oss.ntt.co.jp>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2010-10-05T15:25:13Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> On 05.10.2010 17:56, Robert Haas wrote:
>> I can't imagine how an FDW could possibly be expected to perform well
>> without some persistent local data storage.

> It doesn't seem completely out of the question to me.

One other point that could be made here is that it's not going to
surprise anybody that access to a remote table is really slow compared
to access to a local table.  Why would it surprise anybody if planning
for a remote table is really slow compared to planning for a local
table?  Where is the evidence that anyone would even *notice* the extra
planning time, compared to the execution time of the finished query?

This is still all about premature optimization.

			regards, tom lane