| From: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Marcos Pegoraro <marcos(at)f10(dot)com(dot)br>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Partial Mode in Aggregate Functions |
| Date: | 2026-02-27 04:34:44 |
| Message-ID: | CAApHDvp9i0JC7i2-nBgCf=eHP6_raz8t_uZc4jp1vZ-0n_BELw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, 27 Feb 2026 at 07:39, David G. Johnston
<david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I was pondering whether Batch Mode as more commonly used term would be sufficiently accurate here. But I’m not going to try hard to avoid Partial Mode.
I expect that would confuse more people. I'd expect a "batch mode" in
relation to aggregation to be transitioning multiple input values in a
single call to a transition function. I expect we'll one day have
that, and likely that transition function will be called "Batch
transition function"
Also, I just found [1], so looks like SQL Server also calls these
Partial Aggregates too.
I'll stand by what I said earlier, that if people don't know what
partial aggregation is that we should aim to better explain what it
is. Renaming it won't magically inform people what it is and will
likely just confuse all the people who already know what it is. I
think you're about 10 years too late to bikeshed names for this.
David
[1] https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/blog/sqlserver/partial-aggregation/383338
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bertrand Drouvot | 2026-02-27 04:46:31 | Use pg_icu_unicode_version(void) instead of pg_icu_unicode_version() |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2026-02-27 04:29:48 | Re: index prefetching |