| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kouhei Kaigai <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>, David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: using custom scan nodes to prototype parallel sequential scan |
| Date: | 2014-11-17 16:19:40 |
| Message-ID: | CA+U5nMKMq5XQa6RNrcvnxnx8cXhxj8Gw0rVe=cCZhfezikhV9w@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 14 November 2014 11:02, Kouhei Kaigai <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com> wrote:
> I'd like to throw community folks a question.
> Did someone have a discussion to the challenge of aggregate push-down across
> relations join in the past? It potentially reduces number of rows to be joined.
> If we already had, I'd like to check up the discussion at that time.
Yes, I was looking at aggregate pushdown. I think it needs the same
changes to aggregates discussed upthread.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Christoph Berg | 2014-11-17 16:21:17 | Re: [HACKERS] ltree::text not immutable? |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2014-11-17 16:14:34 | Re: 9.5: Better memory accounting, towards memory-bounded HashAgg |