But I don't think either cover the additional, albeit nuanced, case of
volatile scalar subqueries.
-Paul-
On Fri, Jul 19, 2024 at 2:28 PM David G. Johnston <
david.g.johns...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 19, 2024 at 2:21 PM Paul George
> wrote:
>
>> Great, thanks for th
urkiness, is it fair then to say that drawing
parallels between how GROUP BY subquery is handled is moot?
-Paul-
On Fri, Jul 19, 2024 at 7:48 AM David G. Johnston <
david.g.johns...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 19, 2024 at 7:20 AM Paul George
> wrote:
>
>>
>> I want
Hackers,
I wanted to surface a discussion in [1] regarding the expected behavior of
GROUP BY with VOLATILE expressions. There seems to be a discrepancy between
how volatile functions (RANDOM(), also confirmed with TIMEOFDAY()) and
subqueries are evaluated in groups. In the examples below, volatile
Thanks for the work!
> Since a subquery is a volatile expression, each of its instances
should be evaluated separately.
This seems like a valid point, though "query 2" below which groups over a
RANDOM() column and outputs an additional RANDOM() column a potential,
albeit contrived, counter-exampl
n (I haven't thought deeply about it, TBH), I did find this
result pretty interesting.
-Paul
On Wed, Jul 10, 2024 at 1:27 AM Richard Guo wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 7, 2024 at 10:45 AM Paul George
> wrote:
> > Thanks for reviving this patch and for all of your work on it! Eager
>
Richard:
Thanks for reviving this patch and for all of your work on it! Eager
aggregation pushdown will be beneficial for my work and I'm hoping to see
it land.
I was playing around with v9 of the patches and was specifically curious
about this previous statement...
>This patch also makes eager
