From: Gavin Flower <GavinFlower@archidevsys.co.nz>
To: Craig Ringer <craig@2ndQuadrant.com>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas@vmware.com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Cc: Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Claudio Freire <klaussfreire@gmail.com>
Cc: Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com>
Cc: David Greco <David_Greco@harte-hanks.com>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Poor performance using CTE
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 13:38:54 +1300
Message-ID: <50AD741E.1060100@archidevsys.co.nz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <50AD6D16.9040608@2ndQuadrant.com>
References: <CAHyXU0xeEVX2P=HaNxPiKayEhkWp3GobgAXCQPrfsqbawXVV-w@mail.gmail.com>
<CAGTBQpZ_Za-XSXvmPUx3F7wgeX=HB1xUpDsn+1DXY3a87YJLBQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CAHyXU0z4oUss50vhH_wGZ-HERQe9wCMSf1nMTGNddXeCoKvVVA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAGTBQpbf9bdJ3gjcYdw2FuPmN=dqx+wE7opsCp515cEndpGDYw@mail.gmail.com>
<50AC1472.3050607@2ndQuadrant.com>
<18123.1353455585@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<50ACD166.1000507@vmware.com>
<50ACE970.7050701@dunslane.net>
<3396.1353509947@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<50ACF16C.2020902@dunslane.net>
<20121121153209.GA1271@awork2.anarazel.de>
<50ACF658.10902@archidevsys.co.nz>
<50ACF991.3020603@vmware.com>
<50AD2BD1.8070206@archidevsys.co.nz>
<50AD6D16.9040608@2ndQuadrant.com>
On 22/11/12 13:08, Craig Ringer wrote:
> On 11/22/2012 03:30 AM, Gavin Flower wrote:
>> On 22/11/12 04:56, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>>> On 21.11.2012 17:42, Gavin Flower wrote:
>>>> On 22/11/12 04:32, Andres Freund wrote:
>>>>> On 2012-11-21 10:21:16 -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>>>>>> I wasn't talking about removing it. My point was that if the
>>>>>> optimization
>>>>>> fence around CTEs is removed a lot of people will need to rework
>>>>>> apps
>>>>>> where
>>>>>> they have used them for that purpose. And I continue to think that
>>>>>> spelling
>>>>>> it "OFFSET 0" is horribly obscure.
>>>>> +1
>>>
>>> FWIW, I'm happy with "OFFSET 0". Granted, it's pretty obscure, but
>>> that's what we've historically recommended, and it's pretty ugly to
>>> have to specify a fence like that in the first place. Whenever you
>>> have to resort to it, you ought have a comment in the query
>>> explaining why you need to force the planner like that, anyway.
>>>
>>>>> WITH foo AS (SELECT ...) (barrier=on|off)?
>>>>>
>>>>> 9.3 introduces the syntax, defaulting to on
>>>>> 9.4 switches the default to off.
>>>>
>>>> WITH foo AS (SELECT ...) (fence=on|off)?
>>>>
>>>> WITH foo AS (SELECT ...) (optimisation_fence=on|off)?
>>>
>>> If we are to invent a new syntax for this, can we please come up
>>> with something that's more widely applicable than just the WITH
>>> syntax. Something that you could use to replace OFFSET 0 in a
>>> subquery, too.
>>>
>>> - Heikki
>> WITH FENCE foo AS (SELECT ...)
>> default?
> That doesn't bind tightly enough to a specific CTE term. Consider:
>
> WITH
> FENCE foo AS (SELECT ...),
> bar AS (SELECT ...)
> SELECT * FROM bar;
>
> Are we fencing just foo? Or all expressions?
>
>
> --
> Craig Ringerhttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
> PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
Are we fencing or fooing??? :-)
Hmm...
How about:
(a) If we have lots of WITH SELECTS which mostly have one specific type
of fencing, then we could specify the common fence value after the WITH
and the exceptions after the AS:
WITH FENCE
foo AS (SELECT ...),
bar AS NOT FENCE (SELECT ...).
baz AS (SELECT ...)
SELECT * FROM bar;
alternatively:
WITH NOT FENCE
foo AS FENCE (SELECT ...),
bar AS (SELECT ...).
baz AS FENCE (SELECT ...)
SELECT * FROM bar;
(b) If we retain that FENCE is the default, then it would be simpler
just to just allow a FENCE clause after the AS keyword.
WITH
foo AS (SELECT ...),
bar AS NOT FENCE (SELECT ...).
baz AS (SELECT ...)
SELECT * FROM bar;
Obviously even for (a), we have to have one value of the FENCE clause as
the default. Either make the default FENCE, as now - or NOT FENCE if
that is seen to be a better default, especially if that is easier for
people coming from Oracle.
I suspect most people are blissfully unaware of CTE's being fenced, or
at least not really sure what it means. So I suspect NOT FENCE would be
the better default.
Alternative spellings might be better such as:
FENCED / NOT FENCED
or
FENCED / UNFENCED
Cheers,
Gavin
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: GavinFlower@archidevsys.co.nz, craig@2ndQuadrant.com, hlinnakangas@vmware.com, andres@anarazel.de, andrew@dunslane.net, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, klaussfreire@gmail.com, mmoncure@gmail.com, David_Greco@harte-hanks.com
Subject: Re: Poor performance using CTE
In-Reply-To: <50AD741E.1060100@archidevsys.co.nz>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox