| From: | Corey Huinker <corey(dot)huinker(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: sequential scan result order vs performance |
| Date: | 2016-10-31 20:54:18 |
| Message-ID: | CADkLM=f43+ceZc0YYy_U+-7aDcbczuJrPp-L+k+bw7qgZNwd=g@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 11:37 PM, Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>
wrote:
> BTW, I've sometimes wished for a mode where queries would silently have
> result ordering intentionally futzed, to eliminate any possibility of
> dependence on tuple ordering (as well as having sequences start at some
> random value). I guess with the hooks that are in place today it wouldn't
> be hard to stick a ORDER BY random() in if there wasn't already a Sort node
> at the top level...
+1
In Oracle, we sorta had that feature by adding a parallel hint to a query
even if it didn't need it. It came in handy.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tomas Vondra | 2016-10-31 21:36:28 | Re: Speed up Clog Access by increasing CLOG buffers |
| Previous Message | Corey Huinker | 2016-10-31 20:45:40 | Re: COPY as a set returning function |