Re: [PATCH] Lazy hashaggregate when no aggregation is needed - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Etsuro Fujita
Subject Re: [PATCH] Lazy hashaggregate when no aggregation is needed
Date
Msg-id 4.3.2-J.20120615194845.03a6fa20@129.60.53.11
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [PATCH] Lazy hashaggregate when no aggregation is needed  (Jay Levitt <jay.levitt@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: [PATCH] Lazy hashaggregate when no aggregation is needed
List pgsql-hackers
Hi,

I would like to ask a question before looking into the patch.

At 21:56 12/03/30 -0400, Jay Levitt wrote:
>Tom Lane wrote:
>>Ants Aasma<ants@cybertec.at> writes:
>>>A user complained on pgsql-performance that SELECT col FROM table
>>>GROUP BY col LIMIT 2; performs a full table scan. ISTM that it's safe
>>>to return tuples from hash-aggregate as they are found when no
>>>aggregate functions are in use. Attached is a first shot at that.
>>
>>As I commented in the other thread, the user would be a lot better off
>>if he'd had an index on the column in question. I'm not sure it's worth
>>complicating the hashagg logic when an indexscan + groupagg would
>>address the case better.
>
>Would this patch help in the case where "table" is actually a 
>set-returning function, and thus can't have an index?

ISTM that in many cases, the result size of a set-returning function is 
not so large compared with that of a full plain table scan.  So, in such a 
case a full hash aggregation is not so time consuming.  Am I wrong?

Best regards,
Etsuro Fujita 



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Florian Pflug
Date:
Subject: Re: libpq compression
Next
From: Honza Horak
Date:
Subject: Re: Ability to listen on two unix sockets