Re: proposal: tuplestore, tuplesort aggregate functions

From: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: proposal: tuplestore, tuplesort aggregate functions
Date: 2010-08-18 14:46:57
Message-ID: AANLkTi=zdEcnsH3EU4dRETP+NaTyAk0gKRnnfZfwyPn9@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

2010/8/18 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
> David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> writes:
>> Apart from the medians, which "median-like" aggregates do you have in
>> mind to start with?  If you can provide examples of "median-like"
>> aggregates that people might need to implement as user-defined
>> aggregates, or other places where people would use this machinery, it
>> will make your case stronger for this refactoring.
>
> There would be plenty of scope to re-use the machinery without any
> SQL-level extensions.  All you need is a polymorphic aggregate
> transition function that maintains a tuplestore or whatever.
> I don't see that extra syntax in CREATE AGGREGATE is really buying
> much of anything.
>

Have we to use a transisdent function? If we implement median as
special variant of aggregate - because we need to push an sort, then
we can skip a transident function function - and call directly final
function. This mechanism is used for aggregates with ORDER BY now. So
there can be a special path for direct call of final func. There is
useles to call transident function.

Regards

Pavel

>                        regards, tom lane
>

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2010-08-18 14:54:57 Re: proposal: tuplestore, tuplesort aggregate functions
Previous Message David Fetter 2010-08-18 14:44:39 Re: proposal: tuplestore, tuplesort aggregate functions