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

From Jay Levitt
Subject Re: [PATCH] Lazy hashaggregate when no aggregation is needed
Date
Msg-id 4F766454.9040909@gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [PATCH] Lazy hashaggregate when no aggregation is needed  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: [PATCH] Lazy hashaggregate when no aggregation is needed  (Etsuro Fujita <fujita.etsuro@lab.ntt.co.jp>)
List pgsql-hackers
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? (I don't yet know enough about the 
tree to know when hashaggs get used). I'm wondering if this is a useful 
exception to the "restrictions can't get pushed down through GROUP BYs" rule.

Jay


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andrey Velikoredchanin
Date:
Subject: Re: Standbys, txid_current_snapshot, wraparound
Next
From: Jeff Janes
Date:
Subject: Re: tracking context switches with perf record