From: | "Asko Oja" <ascoja(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Status of DISTINCT-by-hashing work |
Date: | 2008-08-05 15:35:26 |
Message-ID: | ecd779860808050835g1107b22ar73a77e6b09c2b6fb@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Sounds very much like 80% 20% story. 80% that was easy to do is done and now
20% that is complex and progress is slow is left to be done. Sounds very
familiar from the comment in plan cache invalidation :)
On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 5:51 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> I've pretty much finished the project I got a bee in my bonnet about
> last week, which is to teach SELECT DISTINCT how to (optionally) use
> hashing for grouping in the same way that GROUP BY has been able to do
> for awhile.
>
> There are still two places in the system that hard-wire the use of
> sorting for duplicate elimination:
>
> * Set operations (UNION/INTERSECT/EXCEPT)
>
> * Aggregate functions with DISTINCT
>
> I'm thinking of trying to fix set operations before I leave this topic,
> but I'm not sure it's worth the trouble to change DISTINCT aggregates.
> They'd be a lot more work (since there's no executor infrastructure
> in place that could be used) and the return on investment seems low.
>
> Comments?
>
> regards, tom lane
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Gregory Stark | 2008-08-05 15:50:42 | Re: Status of DISTINCT-by-hashing work |
Previous Message | Hiroshi Saito | 2008-08-05 15:15:35 | Re: BUG #4186: set lc_messages does not work |