Re: Status of DISTINCT-by-hashing work - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Hans-Juergen Schoenig
Subject Re: Status of DISTINCT-by-hashing work
Date
Msg-id 4899A30E.6010101@cybertec.at
Whole thread Raw
In response to Status of DISTINCT-by-hashing work  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane wrote:
> I've pretty much finished the project I got a bee in my bonnet about
> last week, which is to teach SELECT DISTINCT how to (optionally) use
> hashing for grouping in the same way that GROUP BY has been able to do
> for awhile.
>
> There are still two places in the system that hard-wire the use of
> sorting for duplicate elimination:
>
> * Set operations (UNION/INTERSECT/EXCEPT)
>
> * Aggregate functions with DISTINCT
>
> I'm thinking of trying to fix set operations before I leave this topic,
> but I'm not sure it's worth the trouble to change DISTINCT aggregates.
> They'd be a lot more work (since there's no executor infrastructure
> in place that could be used) and the return on investment seems low.
>
> Comments?
>
>             regards, tom lane
>
>   

i feel it exactly the same way.
DISTINCT has been a place people wanted to see fixed for a while but set 
operations are nothing I would really worry about.
what we have now is absolutely fine.

given the list of more important issues, i'd vote for something else.
   best regards,
      hans

-- 
Cybertec Schönig & Schönig GmbH
PostgreSQL Solutions and Support
Gröhrmühlgasse 26, A-2700 Wiener Neustadt
Tel: +43/1/205 10 35 / 340
www.postgresql-support.de, www.postgresql-support.com



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andrew Dunstan
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_restore -d cipa /cipa/RAJASTHAN/RAJASTHAN/CIPABACKUP01_08_2008.TAR pg_restore: [archiver] out of memory
Next
From: "Pavel Stehule"
Date:
Subject: Re: plan invalidation vs stored procedures