| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alexander Pyhalov <a(dot)pyhalov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, "Fujii(dot)Yuki(at)df(dot)MitsubishiElectric(dot)co(dot)jp" <Fujii(dot)Yuki(at)df(dot)mitsubishielectric(dot)co(dot)jp>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Finnerty, Jim" <jfinnert(at)amazon(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> |
| Subject: | Re: Partial aggregates pushdown |
| Date: | 2023-11-27 19:07:40 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmobQeKf0-z0gMEiMB90yToRrhy0f8dO8G19qFsX78vqxRw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Nov 22, 2023 at 1:32 AM Alexander Pyhalov
<a(dot)pyhalov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> wrote:
> Hi. HAVING is also a problem. Consider the following query
>
> SELECT count(a) FROM t HAVING count(a) > 10 - we can't push it down to
> foreign server as HAVING needs full aggregate result, but foreign server
> don't know it.
I don't see it that way. What we would push to the foreign server
would be something like SELECT count(a) FROM t. Then, after we get the
results back and combine the various partial counts locally, we would
locally evaluate the HAVING clause afterward. That is, partial
aggregation is a barrier to pushing down HAVING clause itself, but it
doesn't preclude pushing down the aggregation.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Nathan Bossart | 2023-11-27 19:14:39 | Re: Do away with a few backwards compatibility macros |
| Previous Message | Jeremy Schneider | 2023-11-27 19:06:13 | proposal: change behavior on collation version mismatch |