Re: Ordered Partitioned Table Scans
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Ordered Partitioned Table Scans |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 16791.1552081964@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Ordered Partitioned Table Scans (Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Ordered Partitioned Table Scans
Re: Ordered Partitioned Table Scans |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com> writes: > On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 9:15 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> I think you should remove all that >> and restrict this optimization to the case where all the subpaths are >> natively ordered --- if we have to insert Sorts, it's hardly going to move >> the needle to worry about simplifying the parent MergeAppend to Append. > This can be a huge win for queries of the form "ORDER BY partkey LIMIT > x". Even if the first subpath(s) aren't natively ordered, not all of > the sorts should actually be performed. [ shrug... ] We've got no realistic chance of estimating such situations properly, so I'd have no confidence in a plan choice based on such a thing. Nor do I believe that this case is all that important. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: