Re: Eager aggregation, take 3

From: Richard Guo <guofenglinux(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tender Wang <tndrwang(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Paul George <p(dot)a(dot)george19(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andy Fan <zhihuifan1213(at)163(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Eager aggregation, take 3
Date: 2024-09-25 06:55:00
Message-ID: CAMbWs49g0Oz5ws2qXxr-M2G1cw2QLQFBhuRn=YmXMGSjy4d-ZA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Sep 5, 2024 at 9:40 AM Tender Wang <tndrwang(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> 1. in setup_eager_aggregation(), before calling create_agg_clause_infos(), it does
> some checks if eager aggregation is available. Can we move those checks into a function,
> for example, can_eager_agg(), like can_partial_agg() does?

We can do this, but I'm not sure this would be better.

> 2. I found that outside of joinrel.c we all use IS_DUMMY_REL, but in joinrel.c, Tom always uses
> is_dummy_rel(). Other commiters use IS_DUMMY_REL.

They are essentially the same: IS_DUMMY_REL() is a macro that wraps
is_dummy_rel(). I think they are interchangeable, and I don’t have a
preference for which one is better.

> 3. The attached patch does not consider FDW when creating a path for grouped_rel or grouped_join.
> Do we need to think about FDW?

We may add support for foreign relations in the future, but for now, I
think we'd better not expand the scope too much until we ensure that
everything is working correctly.

Thanks
Richard

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Richard Guo 2024-09-25 07:02:51 Re: Eager aggregation, take 3
Previous Message Jelte Fennema-Nio 2024-09-25 06:54:42 Re: Opinion poll: Sending an automated email to a thread when it gets added to the commitfest