Re: [HACKERS] No: implied sort with group by - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From darrenk@insightdist.com (Darren King)
Subject Re: [HACKERS] No: implied sort with group by
Date
Msg-id 9801291337.AA55410@ceodev
Whole thread Raw
Responses Re: [HACKERS] No: implied sort with group by
List pgsql-hackers
> > > > postgres=> select b,c,sum(a) from t1 group by b,c;
> > > > b|c|sum
> > > > -+-+---
> > > >  |x|  5
> > > >  |z|  3
> > > >  |x|  0
> > > > (3 rows)
> > > >
> > > > postgres=> select * from t1;
> > > > a|b|c
> > > > -+-+-
> > > > 1| |x
> > > > 2| |x
> > > > 2| |x
> > > > 3| |z
> > > > 0| |x
> > > > (5 rows)
> > > >
> > > ...
> >
> And in v6.1. If b is a space (rather than a NULL), then the behaviour is correct
> so it must be a problem in grouping NULLs.
>

explain select b,c,sum(a) from foo group by b,c; -- gives...

Aggregate  (cost=0.00 size=0 width=0)
  ->   Group  (cost=0.00 size=0 width=0)
    ->     Sort  (cost=0.00 size=0 width=0)
      ->       Seq Scan on foo  (cost=0.00 size=0 width=28)

There sort is there before the grouping operation, so this would seem to point to
the sort code incorrectly setting something when handling NULLs.

This doesn't seem like the same bug that Vadim found since a small data set such as
this one _shouldn't_ be going out to a tape file.

darrenk

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] time stamps in logging
Next
From: Andrew Martin
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] postmaster crash and .s.pgsql file