SEO

#1 (**permalink**) 04-11-2008, 07:56 AM

Merlin,

> Thanks for bringing the SQL 92 row constructor into spec for
> operations involving > and <. This is just fantastic. I just
> benchmarked ISAM style access to tables on multi-part keys and the
> speedup is tremendous vs. the non row-constructor approach to the
> problem which is tedius to write and only selective to the first part
> of the key. We are talking speedups proportional to the inselectivity
> of the ordering key. While this feature is relatively esoteric, it is
> powerful and belongs in every dba's bag of tricks.

It's esoteric enough that I don't know what you're talking about. Can
you give us an example?

--Josh

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

#2 (**permalink**) 04-11-2008, 07:57 AM

* Martijn van Oosterhout (kleptog@svana.org) wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 07:49:32AM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > Sounds like a bug, will it be in 8.1.3 or do we have to wait till 8.2
> > for it? Sounds very interesting indeed...
>
> Well, the bug is really that we accept the syntax but do the wrong
> thing. I don't know when it was added but the quick fix would be to
> refuse the syntax. I think the changes to make it work were too large
> to be in a point release.

Ah, ok, I misunderstood. Looking forwrad to having it (and having it
work correctly!) in 8.2

Thanks,

Stephen

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFD6gsUrzgMPqB3kigRAmUzAJ9FnOgIHq+yTT7HTKx4gh PfkbVHYwCfegph
eL6WZNhG9P1Vdd+ZmLTmsSQ=
=P2z4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

SEO

Re: sql row constructor...works!