Re: [planner] Ignore "order by" in subselect if parrent do count(*)

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
Cc: Marcin Miros*aw <marcin(at)mejor(dot)pl>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [planner] Ignore "order by" in subselect if parrent do count(*)
Date: 2012-03-01 17:50:02
Message-ID: 14667.1330624202@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

"Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> writes:
> Marcin Miros*aw<marcin(at)mejor(dot)pl> wrote:
>> SELECT count(*)
>> from (select * from users_profile order by id) u_p;

>> "order by id" can be ignored by planner.

> This has been discussed before. Certainly not all ORDER BY clauses
> within query steps can be ignored, so there would need to be code to
> determine whether it was actually useful, which wouldn't be free,
> either in terms of planning time or code maintenance. It wasn't
> judged to be worth the cost. If you want to avoid the cost of the
> sort, don't specify ORDER BY where it doesn't matter.

Considering that ORDER BY in a subquery isn't even legal per spec,
there does not seem to be any tenable argument for supposing that
a user wrote it there "by accident". It's much more likely that
he had some semantic reason for it (say, an order-sensitive function
in a higher query level) and that we'd break his results by ignoring
the ORDER BY. I doubt that very many of the possible reasons for
needing ordered output are reliably detectable by the planner, either.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ants Aasma 2012-03-01 17:53:07 Re: Bad estimation for "where field not in"
Previous Message Dave Crooke 2012-03-01 17:38:39 Re: PG as in-memory db? How to warm up and re-populate buffers? How to read in all tuples into memory?