Message-ID: <51D6DD47.6020606@calculatedsteam.com>
Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2013 09:50:47 -0500
From: Scott Barney <scott@calculatedsteam.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64;
 rv:17.0) Gecko/20130620 Thunderbird/17.0.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Dynamic queries in stored procedure
References: <96F5E9DF-8F6E-4EF6-B0AE-43B585B11F94@gmail.com>
 <51D6D7A2.3030206@dunslane.net>
In-Reply-To: <51D6D7A2.3030206@dunslane.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-performance-owner@postgresql.org

I do this all the time; In fact, I've written a dynamic aggregate engine 
that uses a sudo bind variable technique & dynamic joins with dependency 
injection because the table names and query logic are not known at run 
time - all in plpgsql.

sb
On 7/5/2013 9:26 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
> On 07/05/2013 09:57 AM, Greg Jaskiewicz wrote:
>> Hey,
>>
>> We have a search method that depending on search params will join 3-5 
>> tables, craft the joins and where section. Only problem is, this is 
>> done in rather horrible java code. So using pgtap for tests is not 
>> feasible.
>> I want to move the database complexity back to database, almost 
>> writing the query construction in the plpgsql or python as stores 
>> procedure, any suggestions ?
>>
>> Unfortunately PostgreSQL won't eliminate unnecessary joins from a 
>> view, so I can't just create one view and simple code adding where's, 
>> order by, etc.
>>
>> No, I don't want to use orm.
>>
>
> It's a matter of taste. Pretty much every PL has facilities for 
> constructing and running dynamic sql. PLPgsql ,PLPerl, PLV8 ...
>
> cheers
>
> andrew
>
>
>
>


-- 
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance