You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Currently it looks like any operation on a view is stacked; the view-query is executed along the query on the view. I wonder, especially for aggregated values such as created with GROUP BY, if it isn't a better solution to materialize them instead of recalculating them.
Comment 13713
Date: 2008-11-18 16:09:45 +0100
From: @mlkersten
Observation confirmed. The commonTerm optimizer should
have removed the duplicate code.
This can be considered a bug, because the implementation
was meant to remove all such duplicate subqueries.
A new commonterm optimizer has been created, but will
be checked in after the SIGMOD deadline to avoid
possible interference with recycler experimentation.
Date: 2008-11-06 02:34:19 +0100
From: @skinkie
To: SQL devs <>
Version: -- development
CC: @njnes
Last updated: 2012-05-09 17:24:21 +0200
Comment 13712
Date: 2008-11-06 14:34:19 +0100
From: @skinkie
Currently it looks like any operation on a view is stacked; the view-query is executed along the query on the view. I wonder, especially for aggregated values such as created with GROUP BY, if it isn't a better solution to materialize them instead of recalculating them.
Comment 13713
Date: 2008-11-18 16:09:45 +0100
From: @mlkersten
Observation confirmed. The commonTerm optimizer should
have removed the duplicate code.
Comment 13714
Date: 2008-11-18 16:22:18 +0100
From: @skinkie
Right comment to wrong bug?
Comment 13715
Date: 2008-11-19 08:30:47 +0100
From: @mlkersten
This can be considered a bug, because the implementation
was meant to remove all such duplicate subqueries.
A new commonterm optimizer has been created, but will
be checked in after the SIGMOD deadline to avoid
possible interference with recycler experimentation.
Comment 13716
Date: 2008-11-19 08:38:50 +0100
From: @mlkersten
A test file has been added to test/BugTracker
Comment 13717
Date: 2009-02-11 21:06:50 +0100
From: @njnes
This is a feature request
Comment 13718
Date: 2010-05-04 09:32:09 +0200
From: Pseudo user for Sourceforge import <>
This bug was previously known as tracker item 2229591 at http://sourceforge.net/support/tracker.php?aid=2229591
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: