Re: [HACKERS] Index scan?
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] Index scan? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 5415.934566643@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] Index scan? (Theo Kramer <theo@flame.co.za>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Theo Kramer <theo@flame.co.za> writes: > Tom Lane wrote: >> We need to push awareness of the output ordering requirement down into >> the code that chooses the basic plan. It's on the TODO list (or should >> be) but I dunno when someone will get around to it. > I can't wait :-) I am about to do some major hacking on the planner/optimizer's representation of path sort orders (for anyone who cares, PathOrder data is going to be merged into the pathkeys structures). After the dust settles, I will see what I can do with this issue --- it might be pretty easy once the data structures are cleaned up. Aside from the case with an ORDER BY clause, I believe the planner is currently too dumb to exploit a pre-sorted path for GROUP BY. It always puts in an explicit sort on the GROUP BY keys ... regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: