From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Hitoshi Harada <umi(dot)tanuki(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: wip: functions median and percentile |
Date: | 2010-10-01 13:05:43 |
Message-ID: | 25774.1285938343@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-rrreviewers |
Hitoshi Harada <umi(dot)tanuki(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> 2010/9/26 Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>:
>> This patch needs a few work - can share a compare functionality with
>> tuplesort.c, but I would to verify a concept now.
> Sorry for delay. I read the patch and it seems the result is sane. For
> window function calls, I agree that the current tuplesort is not
> enough to implement median functions and the patch introduces its own
> memsort mechanism, although memsort has too much copied from
> tuplesort. It looks to me not so difficult to modify the existing
> tuplesort to guarantee staying in memory always if an option to do so
> is specified from caller. I think that option can be used by other
> cases in the core code.
If this patch tries to force the entire sort to happen in memory,
it is not committable. What will happen when you get a lot of data?
You need to be working on a variant that will work anyway, not working
on an unacceptable lobotomization of the main sort code.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2010-10-01 13:19:57 | Re: wip: functions median and percentile |
Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2010-10-01 12:40:52 | Re: recovery.conf location |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2010-10-01 13:19:57 | Re: wip: functions median and percentile |
Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2010-10-01 08:46:45 | Re: wip: functions median and percentile |