| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru>, GavinFlower(at)archidevsys(dot)co(dot)nz, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: POC: GROUP BY optimization |
| Date: | 2019-01-31 11:24:07 |
| Message-ID: | 20190131112407.zpbysdvghjyh4z47@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2018-11-29 17:56:53 +0100, Dmitry Dolgov wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 4:16 AM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Jun 30, 2018 at 09:19:13AM +1200, Gavin Flower wrote:
> > > Additionally put an upper limit threshold on the number of combinations to
> > > check, fairly large by default?
> > >
> > > If first threshold is exceeded, could consider checking out a few more
> > > selected at random from paths not yet checked, to avoid any bias caused by
> > > stopping a systematic search. This might prove important when N! is fairly
> > > large.
> >
> > Please note that the latest patch available does not apply, so this has
> > been moved to next CF 2018-11, waiting for input from its author.
>
> Unfortunately, patch still has some conflicts, could you please rebase it?
As nothing has happened since, I'm marking this as returned with
feedback.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2019-01-31 11:24:39 | Re: Online enabling of checksums |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2019-01-31 11:23:38 | Re: cost_sort() improvements |