Re: upper planner path-ification - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Andrew Gierth
Subject Re: upper planner path-ification
Date
Msg-id 87617o4ya9.fsf@news-spur.riddles.org.uk
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: upper planner path-ification  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: upper planner path-ification  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
>>>>> "Tom" == Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:
Tom> Hm.  That's a hangover from when query_planner also gave back aTom> Plan (singular) rather than a set of Paths.  I
don'tsee anyTom> fundamental reason why we couldn't generalize it to be a list ofTom> potentially useful output
orderingsrather than just one.  But I'mTom> a bit concerned about the ensuing growth in planning time; is itTom> really
allthat useful?
 

The planning time growth is a possible concern, yes. The potential gain
is eliminating one sort step, in the case when the input has a usable
sorted path but grouping_planner happens not to ask for it (when there's
more than just a single rollup, the code currently asks for one of the
sort orders pretty much arbitrarily since it has no real way to know
otherwise). Whether that would justify it... I don't know. Maybe that's
one to save for later to see if there's any feedback from actual use.

-- 
Andrew (irc:RhodiumToad)



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Amit Kapila
Date:
Subject: Re: WALWriteLock contention
Next
From: Robins Tharakan
Date:
Subject: Per row status during INSERT .. ON CONFLICT UPDATE?