Re: nodeAgg perf tweak

On Wed, 2004-12-01 at 08:37, Neil Conway wrote:
> On Wed, 2004-12-01 at 08:25 +0000, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > I'd be a little twitchy about new memory contexts at this stage of beta,
> > but if the code is fairly well isolated that could be good.
> 
> This would be for 8.1 anyway.
> 
> > Would it possible to differentiate between well-known builtin functions
> > and added transition functions?
> 
> IMHO, this would be ugly and add unnecessary complexity. I'd like to
> find a solution that actually fixes the problem, rather than just
> working around it in the common case.

It would be my suggestion to implement the optimisation for the common
case *now*, then fix the general case later.

Please shave 20% off everybody's aggregation queries, ugly or not.
You'll see a lot of happy people.

-- 
Best Regards, Simon Riggs