Re: [PATCH] Lazy hashaggregate when no aggregation is needed
От | Etsuro Fujita |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [PATCH] Lazy hashaggregate when no aggregation is needed |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 4.3.2-J.20120615194845.03a6fa20@129.60.53.11 обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [PATCH] Lazy hashaggregate when no aggregation is needed (Jay Levitt <jay.levitt@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: [PATCH] Lazy hashaggregate when no aggregation is needed
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Hi, I would like to ask a question before looking into the patch. At 21:56 12/03/30 -0400, Jay Levitt wrote: >Tom Lane wrote: >>Ants Aasma<ants@cybertec.at> writes: >>>A user complained on pgsql-performance that SELECT col FROM table >>>GROUP BY col LIMIT 2; performs a full table scan. ISTM that it's safe >>>to return tuples from hash-aggregate as they are found when no >>>aggregate functions are in use. Attached is a first shot at that. >> >>As I commented in the other thread, the user would be a lot better off >>if he'd had an index on the column in question. I'm not sure it's worth >>complicating the hashagg logic when an indexscan + groupagg would >>address the case better. > >Would this patch help in the case where "table" is actually a >set-returning function, and thus can't have an index? ISTM that in many cases, the result size of a set-returning function is not so large compared with that of a full plain table scan. So, in such a case a full hash aggregation is not so time consuming. Am I wrong? Best regards, Etsuro Fujita
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: