| From: | Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Cc: | pgsql-committers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: pgsql-server/ oc/src/sgml/runtime.sgml rc/back ... |
| Date: | 2002-11-21 01:01:01 |
| Message-ID: | 20021121085955.S8941-100000@houston.familyhealth.com.au |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
> Log message:
> Finish implementation of hashed aggregation. Add enable_hashagg GUC
> parameter to allow it to be forced off for comparison purposes.
> Add ORDER BY clauses to a bunch of regression test queries that will
> otherwise produce randomly-ordered output in the new regime.
Out of interest (since I was away while this was proposed I assume),
what's the idea with hashed aggergation? I assume each group is now in a
hash bucket? How did it work before?
Chris
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian - CVS | 2002-11-21 01:02:34 | pgsql-server/doc TODO |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-11-21 00:45:18 | pgsql-server/src/test/regress/expected Tag: RE ... |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-11-21 01:04:06 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql-server/ oc/src/sgml/runtime.sgml rc/back ... |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-11-21 00:42:20 | pgsql-server/ oc/src/sgml/runtime.sgml rc/back ... |