On Fri, 2007-01-26 at 11:16 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > I've just read a paper that says PostgreSQL doesn't do this.
> What does he mean by that exactly, and which PG version is he looking
> at? As Greg notes, we do know how to push down non-aggregated
> conditions, but I'm not sure that's what he's thinking of.
Yes, it was specifically non-aggregated conditions.
> There have
> been some relevant bug fixes, eg
> 2004-07-10 14:39 tgl
> * src/backend/executor/: nodeAgg.c (REL7_4_STABLE), nodeAgg.c: Test
> HAVING condition before computing targetlist of an Aggregate node.
> This is required by SQL spec to avoid failures in cases like
> SELECT sum(win)/sum(lose) FROM ... GROUP BY ... HAVING sum(lose) >
> 0; AFAICT we have gotten this wrong since day one. Kudos to Holger
> Jakobs for being the first to notice.
> Also, it's still true that we run all the aggregate transition functions
> in parallel, so if you were hoping to use HAVING on an aggregate
> condition to prevent an overflow or something in the state accumulation
> function for a targetlist aggregate, you'd lose. But I don't see any
> way to avoid that without scanning the data twice, which we're surely
> not gonna do.
I'll send you the paper off-line, there's some more interesting stuff
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2007-01-26 16:23:31|
|Subject: Re: [HACKERS] pg_dump pretty_print |
|Previous:||From: Chris Browne||Date: 2007-01-26 16:19:24|
|Subject: Re: Proposal: Change of pg_trigger.tg_enabled and adding|