| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, tmp <skrald(at)amossen(dot)dk>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Optimizing DISTINCT with LIMIT |
| Date: | 2008-12-04 14:35:26 |
| Message-ID: | 24128.1228401326@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> Gregory Stark wrote:
>> You mean like this?
>>
>> postgres=# explain select distinct x from i limit 5;
>> QUERY PLAN
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Limit (cost=54.50..54.51 rows=1 width=304)
>> -> HashAggregate (cost=54.50..54.51 rows=1 width=304)
>> -> Seq Scan on i (cost=0.00..52.00 rows=1000 width=304)
>> (3 rows)
> Does that know to stop scanning as soon as it has seen 5 distinct values?
In principle, if there are no aggregate functions, then nodeAgg could
return a row immediately upon making any new entry into the hash table.
Whether it's worth the code uglification is debatable ... I think it
would require a third major pathway through nodeAgg.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2008-12-04 14:51:28 | Re: snapshot leak and core dump with serializable transactions |
| Previous Message | Gregory Stark | 2008-12-04 14:32:07 | Re: Optimizing DISTINCT with LIMIT |