Re: idea for concurrent seqscans
От | Jeff Davis |
---|---|
Тема | Re: idea for concurrent seqscans |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1109377818.4089.183.camel@jeff обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: idea for concurrent seqscans ("Jim C. Nasby" <decibel@decibel.org>) |
Ответы |
Re: idea for concurrent seqscans
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, 2005-02-25 at 18:03 -0600, Jim C. Nasby wrote: > On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 01:30:57PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > > Jeff Davis <jdavis-pgsql@empires.org> writes: > > > I didn't consider that. Is there a reason the regression tests assume > > > the results will be returned in a certain order (or a consistent order)? > > > > We use diff as the checking tool. > > Doesn't the SQL spec specifically state that the only time you'll get > results in a deterministic order is if you use ORDER BY? Assuming > otherwise seems a bad idea (though at least in the case of testing it > makes the test more strenuous rather than less...) True, that was my reasoning when I proposed synchronized scanning. Keep in mind that this is a criticism of only the regression tests, not the RDBMS itself. I don't know much about the regression tests, so maybe it's impractical to not assume consistent order. I'm sure the developers will vote one way or the other. I hate to throw away a potential performance boost, but I also hate to burden the developers with rewriting a lot of regression tests when their time could be better spent elsewhere. Regards,Jeff Davis
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: