| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Hadi Moshayedi <hadi(at)moshayedi(dot)net>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "mark(dot)kirkwood(at)catalyst(dot)net(dot)nz" <mark(dot)kirkwood(at)catalyst(dot)net(dot)nz> |
| Subject: | Re: Improving avg performance for numeric |
| Date: | 2013-03-19 16:25:47 |
| Message-ID: | 6095.1363710347@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com> writes:
> Hadi Moshayedi <hadi(at)moshayedi(dot)net> wrote:
>> I also noticed that this patch makes matview test fail. It seems
>> that it just changes the ordering of rows for queries like
>> "SELECT * FROM tv;". Does this seem like a bug in my patch, or
>> should we add "ORDER BY" clauses to this test to make it more
>> deterministic?
> I added some ORDER BY clauses. That is probably a good thing
> anyway for purposes of code coverage. Does that fix it for you?
Uh, what? Fooling around with the implementation of avg() should surely
not change any planning decisions.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Hadi Moshayedi | 2013-03-19 16:37:18 | Re: Improving avg performance for numeric |
| Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2013-03-19 16:12:12 | Re: Improving avg performance for numeric |