Re: FETCH FIRST clause WITH TIES option

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk>
Cc: Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Surafel Temsgen <surafel3000(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: FETCH FIRST clause WITH TIES option
Date: 2018-10-31 17:17:39
Message-ID: CA+TgmoaCO14q0cVkZpntRh+0wQArO6mF14uF6hZ_QcdnfHDR6Q@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 12:48 PM Andrew Gierth
<andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk> wrote:
> Then FETCH FIRST N WITH TIES becomes "stop when the expression
> rank() over (order by ...) <= N
> is no longer true" (where the ... is the existing top level order by)

Wouldn't that be wicked expensive compared to something hard-coded
that does the same thing?

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Pavel Stehule 2018-10-31 17:19:01 Re: ToDo: show size of partitioned table
Previous Message Robert Haas 2018-10-31 17:09:53 Re: pg_promote not marked as parallel-restricted in pg_proc.dat