|From:||Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>|
|To:||Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>|
|Cc:||Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru>, Darafei Komяpa Praliaskouski <me(at)komzpa(dot)net>, Antonin Houska <ah(at)cybertec(dot)at>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>|
|Subject:||Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Incremental sort|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox|
On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 4:44 PM, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
> On 03/28/2018 03:28 PM, Teodor Sigaev wrote:
> >> BTW, patch had conflicts with master. Please, find rebased version
> >> attached.
> > Despite by patch conflist patch looks commitable, has anybody objections
> > to commit it?
> > Patch recieved several rounds of review during 2 years, and seems to me,
> > keeping it out from sources may cause a lost it. Although it suggests
> > performance improvement in rather wide usecases.
> No objections from me - if you want me to do one final round of review
> after the rebase (not sure how invasive it'll turn out), let me know.
Rebased patch is attached. Incremental sort get used in multiple places
of partition_aggregate regression test. I've checked those cases, and it
that incremental sort was selected right.
BTW one detail I'd change is name of the GUC variable. enable_incsort
> seems unnecessarily terse - let's go for enable_incremental_sort or
> something like that.
Already enable_incsort was already renamed to enable_incrementalsort
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company
|Next Message||David Fetter||2018-03-28 15:13:59||Re: Implementing SQL ASSERTION|
|Previous Message||Dmitry Ivanov||2018-03-28 15:07:43||Re: [HACKERS] GSoC 2017: weekly progress reports (week 6)|