| From: | Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Negative Transition Aggregate Functions (WIP) |
| Date: | 2014-04-04 10:50:29 |
| Message-ID: | 382F1426-1934-488C-B765-9E6C74239521@phlo.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>> ), which seem reasonable. But
> then I started testing performance, and I found cases where the
> improvement is not nearly what I expected.
>
> The example cited at the start of this thread is indeed orders of
> magnitude faster than HEAD:
>
> SELECT SUM(n::int) OVER (ROWS BETWEEN CURRENT ROW AND UNBOUNDED FOLLOWING)
> F
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I'm not sure how much additional work is required to sort this out,
> but to me it looks more realistic to target 9.5 than 9.4, so at this
> point I tend to think that the patch ought to be marked as returned
> with feedback.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Regards,
> Dean
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Florian Pflug | 2014-04-04 10:56:55 | Re: [PATCH] Negative Transition Aggregate Functions (WIP) |
| Previous Message | Rajeev rastogi | 2014-04-04 10:36:17 | Observed an issue in CREATE TABLE syntax |