On Tue, 5 Apr 2022 at 07:40, Arne Roland wrote:
> can someone point out to me, why we don't consider pushdowns of the joinqual
> for these queries beyond the distinct on?
>
> When the qual matches the distinct clause, it should be possible to generate
> both parametrized and non parametrized sub
Hi,
can someone point out to me, why we don't consider pushdowns of the joinqual
for these queries beyond the distinct on?
When the qual matches the distinct clause, it should be possible to generate
both parametrized and non parametrized subplans for the same query. The same
should hold true
GROUP BY DISTINCT with GROUPING SETS test?
Any thoughts?
David
[1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/17067-665d50fa321f7...@postgresql.org
On 3/19/21 12:52 AM, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>
> On 3/19/21 12:26 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I wrote:
>>> This is gcc 4.5, but hopefully whatever shuts it up will also work on 4.7.
>>> I'll work on figuring that out.
>>
>> Actually, the problem is pretty obvious after comparing this use
>> of foreach_dele
On 3/19/21 12:26 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> I wrote:
>> This is gcc 4.5, but hopefully whatever shuts it up will also work on 4.7.
>> I'll work on figuring that out.
>
> Actually, the problem is pretty obvious after comparing this use
> of foreach_delete_current() to every other one. I'm not sure wh
I wrote:
> This is gcc 4.5, but hopefully whatever shuts it up will also work on 4.7.
> I'll work on figuring that out.
Actually, the problem is pretty obvious after comparing this use
of foreach_delete_current() to every other one. I'm not sure why
the compiler warnings are phrased just as they
I wrote:
> Hmm ... prairiedog isn't showing the warning, but maybe gaur will.
Bingo:
parse_agg.c: In function 'expand_grouping_sets':
parse_agg.c:1851:5: warning: value computed is not used
This is gcc 4.5, but hopefully whatever shuts it up will also work on 4.7.
I'll work on figuring that out.
Thomas Munro writes:
> On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 10:14 AM Tomas Vondra
> wrote:
>> Thanks for the info. So it's likely related to older gcc releases. The
>> question is how to tweak the code to get rid of this ...
> It's frustrating to have to do press-ups to fix a problem because a
> zombie Debia
On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 10:14 AM Tomas Vondra
wrote:
> >> The only possibility I can think of is some sort of issue in the old-ish
> >> gcc release (4.7.2).
> >
> > No sure what's going on there, but data points: I tried a 32 bit build
> > here (that's the other special thing about lapwing) and di
On 3/18/21 10:02 PM, Thomas Munro wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 8:27 AM Tomas Vondra
> wrote:
>> Hmmm, this seems to fail on lapwing with this error:
>>
>> parse_agg.c: In function 'expand_grouping_sets':
>> parse_agg.c:1851:23: error: value computed is not used
>> [-Werror=unused-value]
>>
On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 8:27 AM Tomas Vondra
wrote:
> Hmmm, this seems to fail on lapwing with this error:
>
> parse_agg.c: In function 'expand_grouping_sets':
> parse_agg.c:1851:23: error: value computed is not used
> [-Werror=unused-value]
> cc1: all warnings being treated as errors
>
> That lin
On 3/18/21 6:25 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> On 3/16/21 3:52 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 3/16/21 9:21 AM, Vik Fearing wrote:
>>> On 3/13/21 12:33 AM, Tomas Vondra wrote:
Hi Vik,
The patch seems quite ready, I have just two comments.
>>>
>>> Thanks for taking a look.
>>>
On 3/16/21 3:52 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>
>
> On 3/16/21 9:21 AM, Vik Fearing wrote:
>> On 3/13/21 12:33 AM, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>>> Hi Vik,
>>>
>>> The patch seems quite ready, I have just two comments.
>>
>> Thanks for taking a look.
>>
>>> 1) Shouldn't this add another for DISTINCT, somewhere
On 3/16/21 9:21 AM, Vik Fearing wrote:
> On 3/13/21 12:33 AM, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>> Hi Vik,
>>
>> The patch seems quite ready, I have just two comments.
>
> Thanks for taking a look.
>
>> 1) Shouldn't this add another for DISTINCT, somewhere in the
>> documentation? Now the index points just
g
>From d83e2237578f774aaf356525ce05e00b74081b8c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Vik Fearing
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 2021 10:26:57 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] implement GROUP BY DISTINCT
---
doc/src/sgml/queries.sgml | 54 ++
doc/src/sgml/ref/select.sgml | 9 +-
s
Hi Vik,
The patch seems quite ready, I have just two comments.
1) Shouldn't this add another for DISTINCT, somewhere in the
documentation? Now the index points just to the SELECT DISTINCT part.
2) The part in gram.y that wraps/unwraps the boolean flag as an integer,
in order to stash it in the
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Tuesday, March 2, 2021 5:51 PM, Vik Fearing wrote:
> On 3/2/21 4:06 PM, Georgios Kokolatos wrote:
>
> > As a minor gripe, I would note the addition of list_int_cmp.
> > The block
> >
> > - /* Sort each groupset individually */
> >
> >
> > -
The following review has been posted through the commitfest application:
make installcheck-world: not tested
Implements feature: not tested
Spec compliant: not tested
Documentation:not tested
Hi,
this is a useful feature, thank you for implementing. I gather that it f
bfde7118d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Vik Fearing
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 2021 10:26:57 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] implement GROUP BY DISTINCT
---
doc/src/sgml/queries.sgml | 41
doc/src/sgml/ref/select.sgml | 9 +-
src/backend/catalog/sql_features.txt
mments' column).
> This line:
> '+T434GROUP BY DISTINCT YES'
>
> (A tab at the end will do, I suppose; that's how I fixed the patch locally)
Argh. Fixed.
Thank you for looking at it!
--
Vik Fearing
>From d5587ece129fbaf4309ddf48d
> On 2021.02.21. 13:52 Vik Fearing wrote:
>
> Attached is a patch to implement this for PostgreSQL.
> []
The changed line that gets stuffed into sql_features is missing a terminal
value (to fill the 'comments' column).
This line:
'+T434 GROUP BY DISTINCT
When combining multiple grouping items, such as rollups and cubes, the
resulting flattened grouping sets can contain duplicate items. The
standard provides for this by allowing GROUP BY DISTINCT to deduplicate
them prior to doing the actual work.
For example:
GROUP BY ROLLUP (a,b), ROLLUP (a,c
22 matches
Mail list logo
