| From: | Hadi Moshayedi <hadi(at)moshayedi(dot)net> | 
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> | 
| Cc: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com>, 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 16:37:18 | 
| Message-ID: | CAK=1=Wpj2snL2XUU+15dQ_DozpF8JygjQ3uo_0AJ_A50D4Dxug@mail.gmail.com | 
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email | 
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers | 
I am not sure how this works, but I also changed numeric sum(), and the
views in question had a numeric sum() column. Can that have any impact?
I am going to dig deeper to see why this happens.
On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 6:25 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> 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 | Tom Lane | 2013-03-19 16:45:48 | Re: Improving avg performance for numeric | 
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2013-03-19 16:25:47 | Re: Improving avg performance for numeric |