Re: [HACKERS] Index scan?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Theo Kramer <theo(at)flame(dot)co(dot)za>
Cc: hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Index scan?
Date: 1999-08-13 17:50:43
Message-ID: 5415.934566643@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Theo Kramer <theo(at)flame(dot)co(dot)za> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> We need to push awareness of the output ordering requirement down into
>> the code that chooses the basic plan. It's on the TODO list (or should
>> be) but I dunno when someone will get around to it.

> I can't wait :-)

I am about to do some major hacking on the planner/optimizer's
representation of path sort orders (for anyone who cares, PathOrder data
is going to be merged into the pathkeys structures). After the dust
settles, I will see what I can do with this issue --- it might be pretty
easy once the data structures are cleaned up.

Aside from the case with an ORDER BY clause, I believe the planner is
currently too dumb to exploit a pre-sorted path for GROUP BY. It
always puts in an explicit sort on the GROUP BY keys ...

regards, tom lane

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 1999-08-13 17:58:33 Re: [HACKERS] PROPOSAL: Statement for one-sided joins
Previous Message Tom Lane 1999-08-13 17:37:19 Re: [HACKERS] Aborted Transaction During Vacuum