| From: | Richard Guo <guofenglinux(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Etsuro Fujita <etsuro(dot)fujita(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Some revises in adding sorting path |
| Date: | 2023-02-21 08:55:24 |
| Message-ID: | CAMbWs48aQnD3xw8eciJO=i90XwJ9KC2sNfNearoPh5H3PvXUog@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Feb 16, 2023 at 7:50 PM Etsuro Fujita <etsuro(dot)fujita(at)gmail(dot)com>
wrote:
> I'm not sure this is a good idea, because the epq_path will return at
> most one tuple in an EPQ recheck.
>
> The reason why an extra Sort node is injected into the epq_path is
> only label it with the correct sort order to use it as an input for
> the EPQ merge-join path of a higher-level foreign join, so shouldn't
> we keep this step as much as simple and save cycles even a little?
Agreed. Thanks for the explanation. I also wondered whether it's
worthwhile to do the change here. I'll remove the 0001 patch.
Thanks
Richard
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Richard Guo | 2023-02-21 09:02:44 | Re: Some revises in adding sorting path |
| Previous Message | Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu) | 2023-02-21 08:03:45 | RE: Time delayed LR (WAS Re: logical replication restrictions) |