On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 12:54 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > TBH, my first reaction to this entire patch is unfavorable: it's a > solution in search of a problem. It adds substantial complication not > only for users but for PG developers in order to solve a rather narrow > performance issue. > > What would make sense to me is to teach the planner about inlining > SQL functions that include ORDER BY clauses, so that the performance > issue of a double sort could be avoided entirely transparently to > the user.
That's not a bad idea, but it only helps for SQL functions. Actually, the problem I have run into in the past was not that the planner didn't know the ordering of the SRF's return value, but that it had no statistics for it, and therefore made bad optimization decisions. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
