Re: Ordered Partitioned Table Scans - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Julien Rouhaud
Subject Re: Ordered Partitioned Table Scans
Date
Msg-id CAOBaU_Z4MU3xNH57_U_EW3cdR09d7bTnJuSM2DX3ks+Nv0m=6Q@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Ordered Partitioned Table Scans  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Ordered Partitioned Table Scans
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 9:15 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> > [ v9-0001-Allow-Append-to-be-used-in-place-of-MergeAppend-f.patch ]
>
> I think you should remove all that
> and restrict this optimization to the case where all the subpaths are
> natively ordered --- if we have to insert Sorts, it's hardly going to move
> the needle to worry about simplifying the parent MergeAppend to Append.

This can be a huge win for queries of the form "ORDER BY partkey LIMIT
x".  Even if the first subpath(s) aren't natively ordered, not all of
the sorts should actually be performed.


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Julien Rouhaud
Date:
Subject: Re: Checksum errors in pg_stat_database
Next
From: Peter Geoghegan
Date:
Subject: Re: Making all nbtree entries unique by having heap TIDs participatein comparisons