Re: [PATCH] Negative Transition Aggregate Functions (WIP)

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От David Rowley
Тема Re: [PATCH] Negative Transition Aggregate Functions (WIP)
Дата
Msg-id CAApHDvpqeqVZ42nbDspUGFA7M3XxC6pqMJiE5rHqZ3zqaHJ=Vg@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: [PATCH] Negative Transition Aggregate Functions (WIP)  (Florian Pflug <fgp@phlo.org>)
Список pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 3:47 PM, Florian Pflug <fgp@phlo.org> wrote:
BTW, as it stands, the patch currently uses the inverse transition function only when *all* the aggregates belonging to one window clause provide one. After working with the code a bit, I think that a bit of reshuffling would allow that distinction to be made on a per-aggregate basis. The question is, is it worth it?


I didn't think it was all that worth it due to the fact that we'd still need to process every tuple in the frame's scope for each aggregate which has no inverse transition function, of course, there would be slightly less work to do in such cases. I guess I just assumed that work load types that would benefit from inverse transitions would have many rows instead of many aggregates and few rows.

I guess to implement the aggregated up to marker variables would just need to be per aggregate rather than per window.

If you think it would be worth it I can modify the patch to work that way.

Regards

David Rowley

 
best regards,
Florian Pflug

В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Craig Ringer
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Why conf.d should be default, and auto.conf and recovery.conf should be in it
Следующее
От: Peter Geoghegan
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: INSERT...ON DUPLICATE KEY LOCK FOR UPDATE