Re: upper planner path-ification

From: Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers\(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: upper planner path-ification
Date: 2015-05-19 11:19:55
Message-ID: 87617o4ya9.fsf@news-spur.riddles.org.uk
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

>>>>> "Tom" == Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:

Tom> Hm. That's a hangover from when query_planner also gave back a
Tom> Plan (singular) rather than a set of Paths. I don't see any
Tom> fundamental reason why we couldn't generalize it to be a list of
Tom> potentially useful output orderings rather than just one. But I'm
Tom> a bit concerned about the ensuing growth in planning time; is it
Tom> really all that useful?

The planning time growth is a possible concern, yes. The potential gain
is eliminating one sort step, in the case when the input has a usable
sorted path but grouping_planner happens not to ask for it (when there's
more than just a single rollup, the code currently asks for one of the
sort orders pretty much arbitrarily since it has no real way to know
otherwise). Whether that would justify it... I don't know. Maybe that's
one to save for later to see if there's any feedback from actual use.

--
Andrew (irc:RhodiumToad)

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robins Tharakan 2015-05-19 12:23:09 Per row status during INSERT .. ON CONFLICT UPDATE?
Previous Message Amit Kapila 2015-05-19 04:28:34 Re: WALWriteLock contention