Re: review: Non-recursive processing of AND/OR lists

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Gurjeet Singh <gurjeet(at)singh(dot)im>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: review: Non-recursive processing of AND/OR lists
Date: 2013-07-01 18:36:43
Message-ID: CA+TgmoYUhMJw82O0BGt=r3qrKNttjhejX+rouNiRCO8_G6vMZg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 1:08 PM, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> 2013/6/30 Gurjeet Singh <gurjeet(at)singh(dot)im>:
>> On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 11:46 AM, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> 2013/6/30 Gurjeet Singh <gurjeet(at)singh(dot)im>:
>>> > On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 11:13 AM, Pavel Stehule
>>> > <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
>>> > wrote:
>>> >
>>> > How about naming those 3 variables as follows:
>>> >
>>> > root_expr_kind
>>> > root_expr_name
>>> > root_bool_expr_type
>>>
>>> +1
>>
>>
>> Thanks. Attached is the patch with that change. I'll update the commitfest
>> entry with a link to this email.
>
> ok
>
> I chechecked it - patched without warnings, all tests passed
>
> It is ready for commit

I think it's a waste of code to try to handle bushy trees. A list is
not a particularly efficient representation of the pending list; this
will probably be slower than recusing in the common case. I'd suggest
keeping the logic to handle left-deep trees, which I find rather
elegant, but ditching the pending list.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2013-07-01 18:39:43 Re: Support for RANGE ... PRECEDING windows in OVER
Previous Message Robert Haas 2013-07-01 18:29:59 Re: Move unused buffers to freelist