| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Takahiro Itagaki <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Review: listagg aggregate |
| Date: | 2010-01-28 17:16:59 |
| Message-ID: | 17245.1264699019@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> in 99.99% the second argument will be a constant. Can we use this
> information and optimize function for this case?
> The detoast on every row can take some percent from a performance.
What detoast? There won't be one for a constant, nor even for a
variable in any sane situation --- who's going to be using
multi-kilobyte delimiter values? And if they do, aren't they likely
to run out of memory for the result long before the repeated detoasts
become an interesting problem? You're arguing about a case that
seems quite irrelevant to the real world.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2010-01-28 17:17:50 | Re: Review: listagg aggregate |
| Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2010-01-28 17:14:37 | Re: Review: listagg aggregate |