Re: [HACKERS] No: implied sort with group by

From: Zeugswetter Andreas DBT <Andreas(dot)Zeugswetter(at)telecom(dot)at>
To: "'pgsql-hackers(at)hub(dot)org'" <pgsql-hackers(at)hub(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] No: implied sort with group by
Date: 1998-01-29 10:23:15
Message-ID: 219F68D65015D011A8E000006F8590C6010A51B2@sdexcsrv1.sd.spardat.at
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Ocie wrote:
>> 2. Instead of sorting the tuples before grouping, add a hashing
system to
>> the group node so that the pre-sorting is not necessary.
>The hash should work. If the hash key is built on the group-by items,
>then any row with the same entries in these columns will get hashed to
>the same result row. At this point, it should be fairly easy to
>perform aggregation (test and substitute for min and max, add for
>sum,avg, etc).

Have been thinking about that too. Is each list in the current hash
implementation sorted ?
Cause else how do you know, that a certain value has not already been
processed ?
Answer: keep a list of already processed groups in memory. Initialize it
for each new hash list.

Andreas

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Martin 1998-01-29 10:43:34 Re: [HACKERS] No: implied sort with group by
Previous Message Igor Sysoev 1998-01-29 09:51:10 time stamps in logging