Re: [PATCH] Lazy hashaggregate when no aggregation is needed
От | Jay Levitt |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [PATCH] Lazy hashaggregate when no aggregation is needed |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 4F766454.9040909@gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [PATCH] Lazy hashaggregate when no aggregation is needed (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: [PATCH] Lazy hashaggregate when no aggregation
is needed
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
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? (I don't yet know enough about the tree to know when hashaggs get used). I'm wondering if this is a useful exception to the "restrictions can't get pushed down through GROUP BYs" rule. Jay
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: