| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jeevan Chalke <jeevan(dot)chalke(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Rajkumar Raghuwanshi <rajkumar(dot)raghuwanshi(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Partition-wise aggregation/grouping |
| Date: | 2017-11-02 02:06:38 |
| Message-ID: | CA+Tgmoa4OxHb8T9=CHGi8s8usSL5pyaZEtEgkMm-CLgjV2R4pg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 6:20 PM, Jeevan Chalke
<jeevan(dot)chalke(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> Yep.
> But as David reported earlier, if we remove the first part i.e. adding
> cpu_operator_cost per tuple, Merge Append will be preferred over an Append
> node unlike before. And thus, I thought of better having both, but no so
> sure. Should we remove that part altogether, or add both in a single
> statement with updated comments?
I was only suggesting that you update the comments.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Craig Ringer | 2017-11-02 02:31:36 | Re: PATCH: enabling parallel execution for cursors explicitly (experimental) |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2017-11-02 02:05:33 | Re: pg_basebackup fails on Windows when using tablespace mapping |