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

Re: idea for concurrent seqscans

From: "Andrew Dunstan" <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org>, <jdavis-pgsql(at)empires(dot)org>,<simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: idea for concurrent seqscans
Date: 2005-02-26 12:45:37
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane said:
> "Jim C. Nasby" <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org> writes:
>>> but I also hate to burden the developers with rewriting a lot of
>>> regression tests when their time could be better spent elsewhere.
>> Certainly, but I suspect it's just a matter of adding ORDER BY to
>> everything, which just about anyone (even myself!) should be able to
>> do.
> Performance is not the issue; test coverage, however, is an issue. See
> the comment at the end of

Is it not possible to wrap the original query in an outer query that applies
the ordering, leaving the original query run without ordering? Would that
cause a lessening of test coverage?



In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Andrew DunstanDate: 2005-02-26 13:13:08
Subject: Re: Development schedule
Previous:From: Neil ConwayDate: 2005-02-26 12:39:25
Subject: Re: idea for concurrent seqscans

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