Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Useless sort by

From: <gnuoytr(at)rcn(dot)com>
To: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Useless sort by
Date: 2010-09-23 03:05:31
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-performance

---- Original message ----
>Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 20:54:22 -0400
>From: pgsql-performance-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org (on behalf of Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>)
>Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Useless sort by  
>To: Gaetano Mendola <mendola(at)gmail(dot)com>
>Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>,pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
>On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 1:09 PM, Gaetano Mendola <mendola(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> I see your point, but some functions like:  unique, count are not affected
>> by the order of values fed, and I don't think either that unique has to
>> give out the unique values in the same fed order.
>Gee, I'd sure expect it to.

Spoken like a dyed in the wool COBOL coder.  The RM has no need for order; it's set based.  I've dabbled in PG for some time, and my sense is increasingly that PG developers are truly code oriented, not database (set) oriented.  

>Robert Haas
>The Enterprise Postgres Company
>Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org)
>To make changes to your subscription:

In response to


pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Greg SmithDate: 2010-09-23 04:01:08
Subject: Re: Useless sort by
Previous:From: Robert HaasDate: 2010-09-23 00:54:22
Subject: Re: Useless sort by

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group