| From: | Jeevan Chalke <jeevan(dot)chalke(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Rajkumar Raghuwanshi <rajkumar(dot)raghuwanshi(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Partition-wise aggregation/grouping |
| Date: | 2017-11-15 12:01:03 |
| Message-ID: | CAM2+6=Uo1WYYjgSjG9ZGmjaucvOcLFO=Few_Yp8GAop25SB-=w@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 7:36 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 6:20 PM, Jeevan Chalke
> <jeevan(dot)chalke(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> > Yep.
> > But as David reported earlier, if we remove the first part i.e. adding
> > cpu_operator_cost per tuple, Merge Append will be preferred over an
> Append
> > node unlike before. And thus, I thought of better having both, but no so
> > sure. Should we remove that part altogether, or add both in a single
> > statement with updated comments?
>
> I was only suggesting that you update the comments.
>
OK. Done in the attached patch set.
I have rebased all my patches on latest HEAD which is at
7518049980be1d90264addab003476ae105f70d4
Thanks
> --
> Robert Haas
> EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
> The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
>
--
Jeevan Chalke
Technical Architect, Product Development
EnterpriseDB Corporation
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| partition-wise-agg-v7.tar.gz | application/x-gzip | 34.7 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas Rosenstein | 2017-11-15 13:12:45 | Logical Replication and triggers |
| Previous Message | Anthony Bykov | 2017-11-15 11:08:23 | Re: Rewriting PL/Python's typeio code |