Re: [HACKERS] Partition-wise aggregation/grouping - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Partition-wise aggregation/grouping
Date
Msg-id CA+Tgmoa4OxHb8T9=CHGi8s8usSL5pyaZEtEgkMm-CLgjV2R4pg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Partition-wise aggregation/grouping  (Jeevan Chalke <jeevan.chalke@enterprisedb.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] Partition-wise aggregation/grouping  (Jeevan Chalke <jeevan.chalke@enterprisedb.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 6:20 PM, Jeevan Chalke
<jeevan.chalke@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> Yep.
> But as David reported earlier, if we remove the first part i.e. adding
> cpu_operator_cost per tuple, Merge Append will be preferred over an Append
> node unlike before. And thus, I thought of better having both, but no so
> sure. Should we remove that part altogether, or add both in a single
> statement with updated comments?

I was only suggesting that you update the comments.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] pg_basebackup fails on Windows when using tablespacemapping
Next
From: Craig Ringer
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] PATCH: enabling parallel execution for cursorsexplicitly (experimental)