Re: Ordered Partitioned Table Scans - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Ordered Partitioned Table Scans
Date
Msg-id 16791.1552081964@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Ordered Partitioned Table Scans  (Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Ordered Partitioned Table Scans
Re: Ordered Partitioned Table Scans
List pgsql-hackers
Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com> writes:
> On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 9:15 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> I think you should remove all that
>> and restrict this optimization to the case where all the subpaths are
>> natively ordered --- if we have to insert Sorts, it's hardly going to move
>> the needle to worry about simplifying the parent MergeAppend to Append.

> This can be a huge win for queries of the form "ORDER BY partkey LIMIT
> x".  Even if the first subpath(s) aren't natively ordered, not all of
> the sorts should actually be performed.

[ shrug... ] We've got no realistic chance of estimating such situations
properly, so I'd have no confidence in a plan choice based on such a
thing.  Nor do I believe that this case is all that important.

            regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Peter Geoghegan
Date:
Subject: Re: Making all nbtree entries unique by having heap TIDs participatein comparisons
Next
From: Andrew Dunstan
Date:
Subject: Re: pgsql: Improve autovacuum logging for aggressive andanti-wraparound ru