| From: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Richard Guo <guofenglinux(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com>, Ronan Dunklau <ronan(dot)dunklau(at)aiven(dot)io>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, Pavel Luzanov <p(dot)luzanov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Ranier Vilela <ranier(dot)vf(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Add proper planner support for ORDER BY / DISTINCT aggregates |
| Date: | 2023-01-18 09:49:10 |
| Message-ID: | CAApHDvqKNNhkhoueepYqgqi_a5OkZFC7jL74iFcBj+Jrh1=9+A@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 18 Jan 2023 at 22:37, Richard Guo <guofenglinux(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I'm still confused that when the same scenario happens with ORDER BY in
> an aggregate function, like in query 1, the result is different in that
> we would get an unsorted output.
>
> I wonder if we should avoid this inconsistent behavior.
It certainly seems pretty strange that aggregates with an ORDER BY
behave differently from the query's ORDER BY. I'd have expected that
to be the same. I've not looked to see why there's a difference, but
suspect that we thought about how we want it to work for the query's
ORDER BY and when ORDER BY aggregates were added, that behaviour was
not considered.
Likely finding the code or location where that code should be would
help us understand if something was just forgotten in the aggregate's
case.
It's probably another question as to if we should be adjusting this
behaviour now.
David
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2023-01-18 09:59:11 | Re: Helper functions for wait_for_catchup() in Cluster.pm |
| Previous Message | David Rowley | 2023-01-18 09:42:40 | Re: Todo: Teach planner to evaluate multiple windows in the optimal order |