Re: [HACKERS] Partition-wise aggregation/grouping
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] Partition-wise aggregation/grouping |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+Tgmoa4OxHb8T9=CHGi8s8usSL5pyaZEtEgkMm-CLgjV2R4pg@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] Partition-wise aggregation/grouping (Jeevan Chalke <jeevan.chalke@enterprisedb.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] Partition-wise aggregation/grouping
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 6:20 PM, Jeevan Chalke <jeevan.chalke@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > Yep. > But as David reported earlier, if we remove the first part i.e. adding > cpu_operator_cost per tuple, Merge Append will be preferred over an Append > node unlike before. And thus, I thought of better having both, but no so > sure. Should we remove that part altogether, or add both in a single > statement with updated comments? I was only suggesting that you update the comments. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: