Re: PoC: Partial sort

From: Marti Raudsepp <marti(at)juffo(dot)org>
To: Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andreas Karlsson <andreas(at)proxel(dot)se>, David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>
Subject: Re: PoC: Partial sort
Date: 2014-02-10 10:33:27
Message-ID: CABRT9RD77U1N+EkcXEp7K0njhg7fr9RAWB-KXA9nkwNv6sXMEQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 7:37 PM, Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> This is not only place that worry me about planning overhead. See
> get_cheapest_fractional_path_for_pathkeys. I had to estimate number of
> groups for each sorting column in order to get right fractional path.

AFAICT this only happens once per plan and the overhead is O(n) to the
number of pathkeys? I can't get worried about that, but I guess it's
better to test anyway.

PS: You didn't answer my questions about splitting the patch. I guess
I'll have to do that anyway to run the tests.

Regards,
Marti

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Christian Convey 2014-02-10 11:45:18 Re: Breaking compile-time dependency cycles of Postgres subdirs?
Previous Message Hannu Krosing 2014-02-10 10:10:59 Re: jsonb and nested hstore