On Jan19, 2014, at 20:00 , David Rowley <dgrowle...@gmail.com> wrote: > I've applied that patch again and put in the sort operators.
I've push a new version to https://github.com/fgp/postgres/tree/invtrans This branch includes the following changes * A bunch of missing declaration for *_inv functions * An assert that the frame end doesn't move backwards - I realized that it is after all easy to do that, if it's done after the loop which adds the new values, not before. * EXPLAIN VERBOSE ANALYZE now shows the max. number of forward aggregate transitions per row and aggregate. It's a bit imprecise, because it doesn't track the count per aggregate, but it's still a good metric for how well the inverse transition functions work. If the number is close to one, you know that very few rescans are happening. * I've also renamed INVFUNC to INVSFUNC. That's a pretty invasive change, and it's the last commit, so if you object to that, then you can merge up to eafa72330f23f7c970019156fcc26b18dd55be27 instead of de3d9148be9732c4870b76af96c309eaf1d613d7. A few more things I noticed, all minor stuff * do_numeric_discard()'s inverseTransValid flag is unnecessary. First, if the inverse transition function returns NULL once, we never call it again, so the flag won't have any practical effect. And second, assume we ever called the forward transition function after the inverse fail, and then retried the inverse. In the case of do_numeric_discard(), that actually *could* allow the inverse to suddenly succeed - if the call to the forward function increased the dscale beyond that of the element we tried to remove, removal would suddenly be possible again. We never do that, of course, and it seems unlikely we ever will. But it's still weird to have code which serves no other purpose than to pessimize a case which would otherwise just work fine. * The state == NULL checks in all the strict inverse transition functions are redundant. I haven't taken a close look at the documentation yet, I hope to be able to do that tomorrow. Otherwise, things look good as far as I'm concerned. best regards, Florian Pflug -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
