Re: Ordered Partitioned Table Scans

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Simon Riggs
Тема Re: Ordered Partitioned Table Scans
Дата
Msg-id CANP8+jJ1Z+1aVDUjXWupgEFTKf=cm9NyxZ4aJZ_DHqLPfM2e4Q@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: Ordered Partitioned Table Scans  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Список pgsql-hackers
On Fri, 22 Mar 2019 at 11:39, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> I agree that the issue of mixing sorts at various points will make nonsense
> of the startup cost/total cost results.

Right.

> I don't see LIMIT costing being broken as a reason to restrict this
> optimization. I would ask that we allow improvements to the important use
> case of ORDER BY/LIMIT, then spend time on making LIMIT work correctly.

There's not time to reinvent LIMIT costing for v12.  I'd be happy to
see some work done on that in the future, and when it does get done,
I'd be happy to see Append planning extended to allow this case.
I just don't think it's wise to ship one without the other.

I was hoping to motivate you to look at this personally, and soon. LIMIT is so broken that any improvements count as bug fixes in my book.

--
Simon Riggs                http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Tom Lane
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Ordered Partitioned Table Scans
Следующее
От: Tom Lane
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Ordered Partitioned Table Scans