Re: DONT_CARE Aggregate - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: DONT_CARE Aggregate
Date
Msg-id 14421.1356025007@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: DONT_CARE Aggregate  (Marti Raudsepp <marti@juffo.org>)
List pgsql-general
Marti Raudsepp <marti@juffo.org> writes:
> On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 3:28 AM, Robert James <srobertjames@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Is there an aggregate that will return an arbitrary instance? That is,
>> not necessarily the max or min, just any one? (Which might perform
>> better than max or min)
>>
>> More importantly:
>> Is there one which will return an arbitrary instance as long as it's not NULL

> There's an extension on PGXN which implements first()/last()
> aggregates in C: http://pgxn.org/dist/first_last_agg/

> It should be slightly faster than min()/max(), but the difference is
> probably not significant in more complex queries.

Another thing to consider is that the presence of any "generic"
aggregate forces a full-table scan, since the system doesn't know that
the aggregate has any particular behavior.  MIN/MAX on the other hand
can be optimized into index probes, if they are on indexed columns.
If the query otherwise uses only MIN/MAX aggregates, it's not hard
to believe that adding a FIRST() or LAST() instead of a MIN/MAX
aggregate could make the query significantly slower, not faster.

However, if you're targeting queries containing a variety of aggregates,
or if any of them are on unindexed columns, then this special case may
not be of much interest.

            regards, tom lane


pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Marti Raudsepp
Date:
Subject: Re: DONT_CARE Aggregate
Next
From: John R Pierce
Date:
Subject: Re: Any experience with Drobo SAN and PG?