- 04 Apr, 2000 1 commit
-
-
Tom Lane authored
WHERE in a place where it can be part of a nestloop inner indexqual. As the code stood, it put the same physical sub-Plan node into both indxqual and indxqualorig of the IndexScan plan node. That confused later processing in the optimizer (which expected that tracing the subPlan list would visit each subplan node exactly once), and would probably have blown up in the executor if the planner hadn't choked first. Fix by making the 'fixed' indexqual be a complete deep copy of the original indexqual, rather than trying to share nodes below the topmost operator node. This had further ramifications though, because we were making the aforesaid list of sub-Plan nodes during SS_process_sublinks which is run before construction of the 'fixed' indexqual, meaning that the copy of the sub-Plan didn't show up in that list. Fix by rearranging logic so that the sub-Plan list is built by the final set_plan_references pass, not in SS_process_sublinks. This may sound like a mess, but it's actually a good deal cleaner now than it was before, because we are no longer dependent on the assumption that planning will never make a copy of a sub-Plan node.
-
- 26 Jan, 2000 1 commit
-
-
Bruce Momjian authored
* Portions Copyright (c) 1996-2000, PostgreSQL, Inc to all files copyright Regents of Berkeley. Man, that's a lot of files.
-
- 23 Nov, 1999 1 commit
-
-
Bruce Momjian authored
-
- 30 Oct, 1999 1 commit
-
-
Tom Lane authored
that has no subplan --- saves a material amount of time for a simple INSERT ... VALUES query.
-
- 22 Aug, 1999 1 commit
-
-
Tom Lane authored
and fix_opids processing to a single recursive pass over the plan tree executed at the very tail end of planning, rather than haphazardly here and there at different places. Now that tlist Vars do not get modified until the very end, it's possible to get rid of the klugy var_equal and match_varid partial-matching routines, and just use plain equal() throughout the optimizer. This is a step towards allowing merge and hash joins to be done on expressions instead of only Vars ...
-
- 21 Aug, 1999 1 commit
-
-
Tom Lane authored
sort order down into planner, instead of handling it only at the very top level of the planner. This fixes many things. An explicit sort is now avoided if there is a cheaper alternative (typically an indexscan) not only for ORDER BY, but also for the internal sort of GROUP BY. It works even when there is no other reason (such as a WHERE condition) to consider the indexscan. It works for indexes on functions. It works for indexes on functions, backwards. It's just so cool... CAUTION: I have changed the representation of SortClause nodes, therefore THIS UPDATE BREAKS STORED RULES. You will need to initdb.
-
- 18 Aug, 1999 1 commit
-
-
Tom Lane authored
above a Sort or Materialize node. As far as I can tell, the only place that actually needed that was set_tlist_references, which was being lazy about checking to see if it had a noname node to fix or not...
-
- 09 Aug, 1999 1 commit
-
-
Tom Lane authored
walking logic with expression_tree_walker/mutator calls.
-
- 16 Jul, 1999 1 commit
-
-
Bruce Momjian authored
-
- 15 Jul, 1999 2 commits
-
-
Bruce Momjian authored
-
Bruce Momjian authored
-
- 06 Jun, 1999 1 commit
-
-
Tom Lane authored
inheritance ... basically it was completely busted :-(
-
- 26 May, 1999 1 commit
-
-
Bruce Momjian authored
-
- 25 May, 1999 2 commits
-
-
Bruce Momjian authored
-
Bruce Momjian authored
-
- 12 May, 1999 1 commit
-
-
Jan Wieck authored
in Resdom and GroupClause so changing of resno's doesn't confuse the grouping any more. Jan
-
- 06 May, 1999 1 commit
-
-
Tom Lane authored
that led to CASE expressions not working very well in joined queries.
-
- 03 May, 1999 1 commit
-
-
Tom Lane authored
from EXCEPT/HAVING patch. Cases involving nontrivial GROUP BY expressions now work again. Also, the code is at least somewhat better documented...
-
- 29 Apr, 1999 1 commit
-
-
Tom Lane authored
due to lack of check for recursing into a null subexpression.
-
- 26 Apr, 1999 1 commit
-
-
Tom Lane authored
-
- 19 Apr, 1999 1 commit
-
-
Tom Lane authored
This fixes a few of the problems Hiroshi Inoue complained of, but I have not touched the rewrite-related issues.
-
- 15 Feb, 1999 1 commit
-
-
Tom Lane authored
what is_opclause will accept.
-
- 13 Feb, 1999 1 commit
-
-
Bruce Momjian authored
-
- 09 Feb, 1999 1 commit
-
-
Bruce Momjian authored
-
- 03 Feb, 1999 2 commits
-
-
Bruce Momjian authored
-
Bruce Momjian authored
-
- 02 Feb, 1999 1 commit
-
-
Bruce Momjian authored
-
- 26 Jan, 1999 1 commit
-
-
Bruce Momjian authored
-
- 25 Jan, 1999 1 commit
-
-
Bruce Momjian authored
-
- 24 Jan, 1999 1 commit
-
-
Bruce Momjian authored
-
- 23 Jan, 1999 1 commit
-
-
Bruce Momjian authored
-
- 18 Jan, 1999 1 commit
-
-
Bruce Momjian authored
INTERSECT and EXCEPT is available for postgresql-v6.4! The patch against v6.4 is included at the end of the current text (in uuencoded form!) I also included the text of my Master's Thesis. (a postscript version). I hope that you find something of it useful and would be happy if parts of it find their way into the PostgreSQL documentation project (If so, tell me, then I send the sources of the document!) The contents of the document are: -) The first chapter might be of less interest as it gives only an overview on SQL. -) The second chapter gives a description on much of PostgreSQL's features (like user defined types etc. and how to use these features) -) The third chapter starts with an overview of PostgreSQL's internal structure with focus on the stages a query has to pass (i.e. parser, planner/optimizer, executor). Then a detailed description of the implementation of the Having clause and the Intersect/Except logic is given. Originally I worked on v6.3.2 but never found time enough to prepare and post a patch. Now I applied the changes to v6.4 to get Intersect and Except working with the new version. Chapter 3 of my documentation deals with the changes against v6.3.2, so keep that in mind when comparing the parts of the code printed there with the patched sources of v6.4. Here are some remarks on the patch. There are some things that have still to be done but at the moment I don't have time to do them myself. (I'm doing my military service at the moment) Sorry for that :-( -) I used a rewrite technique for the implementation of the Except/Intersect logic which rewrites the query to a semantically equivalent query before it is handed to the rewrite system (for views, rules etc.), planner, executor etc. -) In v6.3.2 the types of the attributes of two select statements connected by the UNION keyword had to match 100%. In v6.4 the types only need to be familiar (i.e. int and float can be mixed). Since this feature did not exist when I worked on Intersect/Except it does not work correctly for Except/Intersect queries WHEN USED IN COMBINATION WITH UNIONS! (i.e. sometimes the wrong type is used for the resulting table. This is because until now the types of the attributes of the first select statement have been used for the resulting table. When Intersects and/or Excepts are used in combination with Unions it might happen, that the first select statement of the original query appears at another position in the query which will be executed. The reason for this is the technique used for the implementation of Except/Intersect which does a query rewrite!) NOTE: It is NOT broken for pure UNION queries and pure INTERSECT/EXCEPT queries!!! -) I had to add the field intersect_clause to some data structures but did not find time to implement printfuncs for the new field. This does NOT break the debug modes but when an Except/Intersect is used the query debug output will be the already rewritten query. -) Massive changes to the grammar rules for SELECT and INSERT statements have been necessary (see comments in gram.y and documentation for deatails) in order to be able to use mixed queries like (SELECT ... UNION (SELECT ... EXCEPT SELECT)) INTERSECT SELECT...; -) When using UNION/EXCEPT/INTERSECT you will get: NOTICE: equal: "Don't know if nodes of type xxx are equal". I did not have time to add comparsion support for all the needed nodes, but the default behaviour of the function equal met my requirements. I did not dare to supress this message! That's the reason why the regression test for union will fail: These messages are also included in the union.out file! -) Somebody of you changed the union_planner() function for v6.4 (I copied the targetlist to new_tlist and that was removed and replaced by a cleanup of the original targetlist). These chnages violated some having queries executed against views so I changed it back again. I did not have time to examine the differences between the two versions but now it works :-) If you want to find out, try the file queries/view_having.sql on both versions and compare the results . Two queries won't produce a correct result with your version. regards Stefan
-
- 14 Dec, 1998 1 commit
-
-
Thomas G. Lockhart authored
Allows (at least some) rules and views. Still some trouble (crashes) with target CASE columns spanning tables, but lots now works.
-
- 08 Oct, 1998 1 commit
-
-
Bruce Momjian authored
-
- 09 Sep, 1998 1 commit
-
-
Vadim B. Mikheev authored
-
- 01 Sep, 1998 2 commits
-
-
Bruce Momjian authored
-
Bruce Momjian authored
-
- 20 Jul, 1998 1 commit
-
-
Bruce Momjian authored
-
- 19 Jul, 1998 1 commit
-
-
Bruce Momjian authored
now. Here some tested features, (examples included in the patch): 1.1) Subselects in the having clause 1.2) Double nested subselects 1.3) Subselects used in the where clause and in the having clause simultaneously 1.4) Union Selects using having 1.5) Indexes on the base relations are used correctly 1.6) Unallowed Queries are prevented (e.g. qualifications in the having clause that belong to the where clause) 1.7) Insert into as select 2) Queries using the having clause on view relations also work but there are some restrictions: 2.1) Create View as Select ... Having ...; using base tables in the select 2.1.1) The Query rewrite system: 2.1.2) Why are only simple queries allowed against a view from 2.1) ? 2.2) Select ... from testview1, testview2, ... having...; 3) Bug in ExecMergeJoin ?? Regards Stefan
-
- 15 Jun, 1998 1 commit
-
-
Bruce Momjian authored
-