From: | Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Hitoshi Harada <umi(dot)tanuki(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Underspecified window queries in regression tests |
Date: | 2011-10-16 18:04:08 |
Message-ID: | CAM-w4HMPL4D4ApaEieitrXqiEaWTh3L36oQcyF5DpKJys15ENw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 9:32 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> We could hack around this by adding more columns to the result so that
> an index-only scan doesn't work. But I wonder whether it wouldn't be
> smarter to add ORDER BY clauses to the window function calls. I've been
> known to argue against adding just-in-case ORDER BYs to the regression
> tests in the past; but these cases bother me more because a plan change
> will not just rearrange the result rows but change their contents,
> making it really difficult to verify that nothing's seriously wrong.
I'm not sure if it applies to this case but I recall I was recently
running queries on Oracle that included window functions and it
wouldn't even let me run them without ORDER BY clauses in the window
definition. I don't know if it cleverly determines that the ORDER BY
will change the results or if Oracle just requires ORDER BY on all
window definitions or what.
--
greg
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2011-10-16 18:12:40 | Re: patch for new feature: Buffer Cache Hibernation |
Previous Message | Greg Stark | 2011-10-16 17:57:59 | Re: patch for new feature: Buffer Cache Hibernation |