Re: Add proper planner support for ORDER BY / DISTINCT aggregates
От | David Rowley |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Add proper planner support for ORDER BY / DISTINCT aggregates |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAApHDvogabtJzP8K6s75ruSXJAOfCvUJtUVWBS=2C-49kRqvCQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Add proper planner support for ORDER BY / DISTINCT aggregates (Ronan Dunklau <ronan.dunklau@aiven.io>) |
Ответы |
Re: Add proper planner support for ORDER BY / DISTINCT aggregates
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 19 Jul 2021 at 18:32, Ronan Dunklau <ronan.dunklau@aiven.io> wrote: > regression=# explain select sum(unique1 order by ten, two), sum(unique1 order > by four), sum(unique1 order by two, four) from tenk2 group by ten; > QUERY PLAN > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > GroupAggregate (cost=1109.39..1234.49 rows=10 width=28) > Group Key: ten > -> Sort (cost=1109.39..1134.39 rows=10000 width=16) > Sort Key: ten, ten, two > -> Seq Scan on tenk2 (cost=0.00..445.00 rows=10000 width=16) > > > We would ideally like to sort on ten, two, four to satisfy the first and last > aggref at once. Stripping the common prefix (ten) would eliminate this problem. Thanks for finding this. I've made a few changes to make this case work as you describe. Please see attached v6 patches. Because I had to add additional code to take the GROUP BY pathkeys into account when choosing the best ORDER BY agg pathkeys, the function that does that became a little bigger. To try to reduce the complexity of it, I got rid of all the processing from the initial loop and instead it now uses the logic from the 2nd loop to find the best pathkeys. The reason I'd not done that in the first place was because I'd thought I could get away without building an additional Bitmapset for simple cases, but that's probably fairly cheap compared to building Pathkeys. With the additional complexity for the GROUP BY pathkeys, the extra code seemed not worth it. The 0001 patch is the ORDER BY aggregate code. 0002 is to fix up some broken regression tests in postgres_fdw that 0001 caused. It appears that 0001 uncovered a bug in the postgres_fdw code. I've reported that in [1]. If that turns out to be a bug then it'll need to be fixed before this can progress. David [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAApHDvr4OeC2DBVY--zVP83-K=bYrTD7F8SZDhN4g+pj2f2S-A@mail.gmail.com
Вложения
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: