1. 26 8月, 1999 1 次提交
    • T
      Revise implementation of SubLinks so that there is a consistent, · 42af56e1
      Tom Lane 提交于
      documented intepretation of the lefthand and oper fields.  Fix a number of
      obscure problems while at it --- for example, the old code failed if the parser
      decided to insert a type-coercion function just below the operator of a
      SubLink.
      CAUTION: this will break stored rules that contain subplans.  You may
      need to initdb.
      42af56e1
  2. 23 8月, 1999 1 次提交
    • T
      Further planner/optimizer cleanups. Move all set_tlist_references · 78114cd4
      Tom Lane 提交于
      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 ...
      78114cd4
  3. 21 8月, 1999 1 次提交
    • T
      Major revision of sort-node handling: push knowledge of query · db436adf
      Tom Lane 提交于
      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.
      db436adf
  4. 16 7月, 1999 2 次提交
  5. 15 7月, 1999 1 次提交
  6. 21 6月, 1999 1 次提交
  7. 26 5月, 1999 1 次提交
  8. 10 5月, 1999 1 次提交
  9. 03 3月, 1999 1 次提交
    • T
      Partial fix for copied-plan bugs reported by Hiroshi Inoue: · e0345e09
      Tom Lane 提交于
      _copyResult didn't copy subPlan structure completely.  _copyAgg is still
      busted, apparently because of changes from EXCEPT/INTERSECT patch
      (get_agg_tlist_references is no longer sufficient to find all aggregates).
      No time to look at that tonight, however.
      e0345e09
  10. 14 2月, 1999 1 次提交
  11. 04 2月, 1999 1 次提交
  12. 24 1月, 1999 1 次提交
  13. 18 1月, 1999 1 次提交
    • B
      Hi! · bd8ffc6f
      Bruce Momjian 提交于
      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
      bd8ffc6f
  14. 01 9月, 1998 2 次提交
  15. 24 8月, 1998 1 次提交
    • B
      I have found a minor problem with current configure.in. · 648f007f
      Bruce Momjian 提交于
      [AC_MSG_RESULT(yes) AC_DEFINE(HAVE_LONG_INT_64)],
      
      this line produces something like:
      
        echo "$ac_t""yes" 1>&6 cat >> confdefs.h <<\EOF
      
      and would append garbage "yes cat" to confdefs.h. Of course the
      result confdefs.h is not syntactically correct therefore following
      tests using confdefs.h would all fail.  To avoid the problem, we
      could switch the order of AC_MSG_RESULT and AC_DEFINE (see attached
      patch). This happend on my LinuxPPC box.
      
      
      Tatsuo Ishii t-ishii@sra.co.jp
      648f007f
  16. 24 7月, 1998 2 次提交
  17. 19 7月, 1998 1 次提交
    • B
      1) Queries using the having clause on base tables should work well · 460b20a4
      Bruce Momjian 提交于
         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
      460b20a4
  18. 15 7月, 1998 1 次提交
  19. 16 6月, 1998 1 次提交
  20. 26 2月, 1998 1 次提交
  21. 13 2月, 1998 1 次提交