From: | Alex Hunsaker <badalex(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Functional dependencies and GROUP BY |
Date: | 2010-07-23 17:00:58 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTinLdcErLQFV5XveMR589idSjdCV=cWu16T_Z_hB@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 02:40, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
> On lör, 2010-07-17 at 11:13 -0600, Alex Hunsaker wrote:
>> So I would expect the more indexes you
>> had or group by items to slow it down. Not so much the number of
>> columns. Right?
>
> At the outer level (which is not visible in this patch) it loops over
> all columns in the select list, and then it looks up the indexes each
> time. So the concern was that if the select list was * with a wide
> table, looking up the indexes each time would be slow.
Thanks for the explanation.
>> Anyhow it sounds like I should try it on top of the other patch and
>> see if it works. I assume it might still need some fixups to work
>> with that other patch? Or do you expect it to just work?
>
> There is some work necessary to integrate the two.
I just read that patch is getting pushed till at least the next commit
fest: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-07/msg01219.php
Should we push this patch back to? Alternatively we could make it
work with just primary keys until the other patch gets in. I think
that makes sense, find that attached. Thoughts?
Note I axed the index not null attribute checking, I have not thought
to deeply about it other than if its a primary key it cant have non
null attributes.... Right? I may have missed something subtle hence
the heads up.
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
func_deps_v3.patch | text/x-patch | 13.1 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alex Hunsaker | 2010-07-23 17:17:05 | Re: Functional dependencies and GROUP BY |
Previous Message | Yeb Havinga | 2010-07-23 15:47:59 | Re: Preliminary review of Synchronous Replication patches |