From: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: ToDo: KNN Search should to support DISTINCT clasuse? |
Date: | 2012-10-22 20:53:48 |
Message-ID: | CAFj8pRDc1Qj46f8dpuqq56ahAtvHvN8KcCcQmPZTW5M1KP9Adw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2012/10/22 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 11:57 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>> Don't hold your breath. There are two ways the system could implement
>>> the DISTINCT clause: either sort and uniq, or hashaggregate.
>>> hashaggregate will destroy any input ordering, so there's no value in
>>> using the index as input.
>
>> Isn't that an implementation limitation though, rather than a
>> fundamental limitation?
>
> Perhaps, but it's not a simple one to surmount, and I'm dubious about
> putting the amount of work that'd be required into such a corner case.
I don't think so this use case is too special - but workaround working well
Regards
Pavel
>
> regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kohei KaiGai | 2012-10-22 20:54:50 | Re: [v9.3] Row-Level Security |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2012-10-22 20:22:23 | Re: [PATCH] Support for Array ELEMENT Foreign Keys |