Re: review: More frame options in window functions

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

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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