| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Ronan Dunklau <ronan(dot)dunklau(at)aiven(dot)io> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, Vik Fearing <vik(at)postgresfriends(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Ordering behavior for aggregates |
| Date: | 2022-12-13 17:05:14 |
| Message-ID: | 2349476.1670951114@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Ronan Dunklau <ronan(dot)dunklau(at)aiven(dot)io> writes:
> Le mardi 13 décembre 2022, 16:13:34 CET Tom Lane a écrit :
>> Accordingly, I find nothing at all attractive in this proposal.
>> I think the main thing it'd accomplish is to drive users back to
>> the bad old days of ordering-by-subquery, if they have a requirement
>> we failed to account for.
> I think the ability to mark certain aggregates as being able to completely
> ignore the ordering because they produce exactly the same results is still a
> useful optimization.
That is *exactly* the position I do not accept.
I think it's fairly unlikely that a user would trouble to write ORDER BY
within an aggregate call if they didn't need it. So my opinion of this
proposal is that it's a lot of work to create an optimization effect that
will be useless to nearly all users, and might actively break the queries
of some.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David G. Johnston | 2022-12-13 17:15:12 | Re: Ordering behavior for aggregates |
| Previous Message | Drouvot, Bertrand | 2022-12-13 16:50:12 | Re: Minimal logical decoding on standbys |