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

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Ordered Partitioned Table Scans
Date
Msg-id 2956.1553269139@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Ordered Partitioned Table Scans  (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: Ordered Partitioned Table Scans
List pgsql-hackers
Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> I agree that the issue of mixing sorts at various points will make nonsense
> of the startup cost/total cost results.

Right.

> I don't see LIMIT costing being broken as a reason to restrict this
> optimization. I would ask that we allow improvements to the important use
> case of ORDER BY/LIMIT, then spend time on making LIMIT work correctly.

There's not time to reinvent LIMIT costing for v12.  I'd be happy to
see some work done on that in the future, and when it does get done,
I'd be happy to see Append planning extended to allow this case.
I just don't think it's wise to ship one without the other.

            regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [proposal] Add an option for returning SQLSTATE in psql error message
Next
From: Simon Riggs
Date:
Subject: Re: Ordered Partitioned Table Scans