| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Matthew Wakeling <matthew(at)flymine(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Dimitri <dimitrik(dot)fr(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Aidan Van Dyk <aidan(at)highrise(dot)ca>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Performance <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Any better plan for this query?.. |
| Date: | 2009-05-19 11:41:00 |
| Message-ID: | 1242733261.14551.190.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Tue, 2009-05-19 at 12:36 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> Partially sorted data takes much less effort to sort (OK, not zero, I
> grant) so this seems like a high complexity, lower value feature. I
> agree it should be on the TODO, just IMHO at a lower priority than some
> other features.
Perhaps its worth looking at a hybrid merge-join/hash-join that can cope
with data only mostly-sorted rather than fully sorted. That way we can
probably skip the partial sort altogether.
--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dimitri | 2009-05-19 12:00:41 | Re: Any better plan for this query?.. |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2009-05-19 11:36:25 | Re: Any better plan for this query?.. |