| From: | Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: GROUPING |
| Date: | 2015-05-21 08:20:04 |
| Message-ID: | 87twv6z6ni.fsf@news-spur.riddles.org.uk |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>>>>> "Dean" == Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> Maybe INT8 would be a better choice than INT4? But I'm not sure
>> there's any practical use-case for more than 30 grouping sets
>> anyway. Keep in mind the actual output volume probably grows like
>> 2^N.
Dean> Actually using ROLLUP the output volume only grows linearly with
Dean> N. I tend to think that having such a large number of grouping
Dean> sets would be unlikely, however, it seems wrong to be putting an
Dean> arbitrary limit on it that's significantly smaller than the
Dean> number of columns allowed in a table.
Limit on what exactly?
Consider that in both MSSQL 2014 and Oracle 12 the limit on the number
of arguments in a GROUPING() expression is ... 1.
--
Andrew (irc:RhodiumToad)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Volker Aßmann | 2015-05-21 09:43:51 | Re: Disabling trust/ident authentication configure option |
| Previous Message | Dean Rasheed | 2015-05-21 08:08:38 | Re: GROUPING |