From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Hitoshi Harada <umi(dot)tanuki(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Erik Rijkers <er(at)xs4all(dot)nl>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: review: More frame options in window functions |
Date: | 2010-01-19 01:24:33 |
Message-ID: | 20727.1263864273@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hitoshi Harada <umi(dot)tanuki(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> 2010/1/19 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
>> AFAICS that doesn't mean it can't be the
>> canonicalized form of the sort key. If a column is dropped out of the
>> canonical sort key then it's simply redundant, and hence not relevant to
>> determining the range.
> Yeah, that's my point, too. The planner has to distinguish "four" from
> sort pathkeys and to teach the executor the simple information which
> column should be used to determine frame. I was bit wrong because some
> of current executor code isn't like it, like using ordNumCols == 0 to
> know whether partition equals to frame, though....
BTW, watch out for the possibility that the canonicalized key is empty.
This isn't an error case --- what it means is that the planner has
proven that all the rows have equal sort key values, so there's no
need to compare anything.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-01-19 01:37:17 | Re: plpgsql: open for execute - add USING clause |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2010-01-19 00:49:59 | Re: parallel regression test output |