Re: [HACKERS] No: implied sort with group by

From: Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: darrenk(at)insightdist(dot)com (Darren King)
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] No: implied sort with group by
Date: 1998-01-29 14:51:04
Message-ID: 199801291451.JAA10489@candle.pha.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> > And in v6.1. If b is a space (rather than a NULL), then the behaviour is correct
> > so it must be a problem in grouping NULLs.
> >
>
> explain select b,c,sum(a) from foo group by b,c; -- gives...
>
> Aggregate (cost=0.00 size=0 width=0)
> -> Group (cost=0.00 size=0 width=0)
> -> Sort (cost=0.00 size=0 width=0)
> -> Seq Scan on foo (cost=0.00 size=0 width=28)
>
> There sort is there before the grouping operation, so this would seem to point to
> the sort code incorrectly setting something when handling NULLs.
>
> This doesn't seem like the same bug that Vadim found since a small data set such as
> this one _shouldn't_ be going out to a tape file.

We have a NULL sort patch for psort in 6.3. Are you running the most
recent sources?

--
Bruce Momjian
maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message The Hermit Hacker 1998-01-29 14:52:27 Re: [HACKERS] postmaster crash and .s.pgsql file
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 1998-01-29 14:47:06 Re: [HACKERS] Profiling the backend (gprof output) [current devel]