>> ), which seem reasonable. But
> then I started testing performance, and I found cases where the
> improvement is not nearly what I expected.
>
> The example cited at the start of this thread is indeed orders of
> magnitude faster than HEAD:
>
> SELECT SUM(n::int) OVER (ROWS BETWEEN CURRENT ROW AND UNBOUNDED FOLLOWING)
> F
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I'm not sure how much additional work is required to sort this out,
> but to me it looks more realistic to target 9.5 than 9.4, so at this
> point I tend to think that the patch ought to be marked as returned
> with feedback.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Regards,
> Dean