Hi,
On 2018-06-11 17:29:52 +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> It would be great to get something that performs better than just falling
> back to sort (and I was advocating for that), but I'm worried we might be
> moving the goalposts way too far.
I'm unclear on why that'd have that bad performance in relevant
cases. You're not going to hit the path unless the number of groups is
pretty large (or work_mem is ridiculously small, in which case we don't
care). With a large number of groups the sorting path isn't particularly
inefficient, because repeatedly storing the input values isn't such a
large fraction in comparison to the number of groups (and their
transition values). Which scenarios are you concerned about?
Greetings,
Andres Freund
