From: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Richard Guo <guofenglinux(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Apply the "LIMIT 1" optimization to partial DISTINCT |
Date: | 2024-01-26 08:14:01 |
Message-ID: | CAApHDvqU7_Wryoi0v_PeCPhtgKUzgttrRb2DAzBf+R1PpMzMTw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, 26 Jan 2024 at 20:42, Richard Guo <guofenglinux(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> In 5543677ec9 we introduced an optimization that uses Limit instead of
> Unique to implement DISTINCT when all the DISTINCT pathkeys have been
> marked as redundant. I happened to notice that this optimization was
> not applied to partial DISTINCT, which I think should be.
It seems very likely that the parallel plan would only be chosen if
the planner estimated there'd just be 1 row before the distinct.
Otherwise, the non-partial path's LIMIT would come out so cheap that
it would be unlikely that the parallel plan would be picked.
I think your test case only chooses the parallel plan because you're
doing FROM tenk1 WHERE four=4. And that column only contains values
0..3.
However, having said that. Parallel plans are often picked when there
is some highly selective qual as parallel_tuple_cost has to be applied
to fewer tuples for such plans, so probably this is worth doing.
David
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Junwang Zhao | 2024-01-26 08:18:14 | Re: Make COPY format extendable: Extract COPY TO format implementations |
Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2024-01-26 08:13:43 | Re: proposal: psql: show current user in prompt |