|From:||Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>|
|To:||Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>|
|Cc:||Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>|
|Subject:||Re: [HACKERS] [Proposal] Make the optimiser aware of partitions ordering|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox|
On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 2:59 AM, Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 2:56 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 6:29 AM, Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>> That's true, but numCols, sortColdIdx etc are also used to display the
>>> sort key in an explain. If an append can return sorted data, it
>>> should also display the sort information, so I think these fields are
>>> still required in an Append node.
>> I don't think so. An index scan doesn't output that information, nor
>> does a nested loop which inherits a sort order from its outer path. I
>> think the rule is that a plan node which takes steps to get the data
>> into a certain order might want to output something about that, but a
>> plan node which somehow gets that ordering without taking any explicit
>> action doesn't print anything.
> Oh, ok that indeed makes sense. As I said I'll remove all the useless
> noise and send an updated patch. Thanks again.
Waiting for a patch update for two months now, so marked as returned
|Next Message||Michael Paquier||2017-11-29 02:16:49||Re: [HACKERS] WIP: Covering + unique indexes.|
|Previous Message||Craig Ringer||2017-11-29 02:13:32||Re: [PATCH] Atomic pgrename on Windows|