2010/1/24 Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>:
> On Fri, 2010-01-22 at 11:14 -0800, David E.Wheeler wrote:
>> No performance issues
> ISTM that this class of function is inherently dangerous performance
there is potencial risk, but this risk isn't new. The almost all what
you say is true for array aggregates.
> * It looks incredibly easy to construct enormous lists. We should test
> the explosion limit of this to see how it is handled. Perhaps we need
> some parameter limits to control that, depending upon results.
There are no limit for generating large values - like bytea, xml, or
text. There are not limit for array_accum or array(query). So, I don't
think we need some special mechanism for listagg. If somebody will
generate too large a value, then he will get "out of memory"
> * Optimizer doesn't consider whether the result type of an aggregate get
> bigger as the aggregate processes more rows. If we're adding this
> function we should give some thought in that area also, or at least a
> comment to note that it can and will cause the optimizer problems in
> complex queries.
this is true, but this isn't some new. array_accum working well
without optimizer problems.
> Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Magnus Hagander||Date: 2010-01-24 18:40:41|
|Subject: Re: Resetting a single statistics counter|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2010-01-24 18:33:27|
|Subject: Re: Resetting a single statistics counter |