On Tue, Nov 26, 2024 at 10:22 AM Richard Guo wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 26, 2024 at 10:12 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> > Richard Guo writes:
> > > I've applied some of the changes you suggested in your previous email
> > > and pushed the updated patch. Thank you for your review.
> > The buildfarm's not too
On Tue, Nov 26, 2024 at 10:12 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> Richard Guo writes:
> > I've applied some of the changes you suggested in your previous email
> > and pushed the updated patch. Thank you for your review.
>
> The buildfarm's not too happy. It looks like this patch decided
> to use the name "di
Richard Guo writes:
> I've applied some of the changes you suggested in your previous email
> and pushed the updated patch. Thank you for your review.
The buildfarm's not too happy. It looks like this patch decided
to use the name "distinct_tbl" in a test script that runs in
parallel with anoth
On Tue, Nov 26, 2024 at 9:43 AM Richard Guo wrote:
> I've applied some of the changes you suggested in your previous email
> and pushed the updated patch. Thank you for your review.
Ah, the buildfarm is complaining. I shouldn't create tables with the
same name in two test files. Fixing ...
Th
On Fri, Nov 22, 2024 at 5:40 PM Andrei Lepikhov wrote:
> I wonder if it would be possible to print only three rows instead of 10
> to prove the DISTINCT's correctness.
There are ten distinct values in the 'distinct_tbl' test table, so
I think it’d better to print all of them to verify correctness
On 11/13/24 13:49, Richard Guo wrote:
On Mon, Oct 28, 2024 at 6:15 PM Andrei Lepikhov wrote:
On 6/7/24 16:46, Richard Guo wrote:
I'm not sure about merging these two 'reordering' GUCs into one.
While they may look similar, they apply to very different scenarios.
However, I'm open to other sugg
On 11/14/24 08:09, Richard Guo wrote:
On Wed, Nov 13, 2024 at 7:36 PM Andrei Lepikhov wrote:
On 11/13/24 13:49, Richard Guo wrote:
In thread [1], I try to add one more strategy that minimises the number
of comparison operator calls. It seems that it would work the same way
with the DISTINCT sta
On Wed, Nov 13, 2024 at 7:36 PM Andrei Lepikhov wrote:
> On 11/13/24 13:49, Richard Guo wrote:
> > Thanks for reviewing this patch. After some consideration, I think
> > it's not too complex to also apply this optimization to DISTINCT ON.
> > The parser already ensures that the DISTINCT ON expres
On 11/13/24 13:49, Richard Guo wrote:
On Mon, Oct 28, 2024 at 6:15 PM Andrei Lepikhov wrote:
On 6/7/24 16:46, Richard Guo wrote:
This patch does not apply any more, so here is a new rebase, with some
tweaks to the comments.
This patch needs a minor rebase again.
After skimming the code, I w
On Mon, Oct 28, 2024 at 6:15 PM Andrei Lepikhov wrote:
> On 6/7/24 16:46, Richard Guo wrote:
> > This patch does not apply any more, so here is a new rebase, with some
> > tweaks to the comments.
> This patch needs a minor rebase again.
> After skimming the code, I want to say that it looks good.
On 6/7/24 16:46, Richard Guo wrote:
On Mon, Feb 5, 2024 at 11:18 AM Richard Guo wrote:
cfbot reminds that this patch does not apply any more. So I've rebased
it on master, and also adjusted the test cases a bit.
This patch does not apply any more, so here is a new rebase, with some
tweaks to
On Mon, Feb 5, 2024 at 11:18 AM Richard Guo wrote:
> cfbot reminds that this patch does not apply any more. So I've rebased
> it on master, and also adjusted the test cases a bit.
This patch does not apply any more, so here is a new rebase, with some
tweaks to the comments.
Thanks
Richard
v3-
cfbot reminds that this patch does not apply any more. So I've rebased
it on master, and also adjusted the test cases a bit.
Thanks
Richard
v2-0001-Reordering-DISTINCT-keys-to-match-input-path-s-pathkeys.patch
Description: Binary data
On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 5:03 PM David Rowley wrote:
> I've not caught up on the specifics of 0452b461b, but I just wanted to
> highlight that there was some work done in [1] in this area. It seems
> Ankit didn't ever add that to a CF, so that might explain why it's
> been lost.
>
> Anyway, just
On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 at 18:56, Richard Guo wrote:
>
> Similar to what we did to GROUP BY keys in 0452b461bc, I think we can do
> the same to DISTINCT keys, i.e. reordering DISTINCT keys to match input
> path's pathkeys, which can help reduce cost by avoiding unnecessary
> re-sort, or allowing us to
On Tue, 2024-01-23 at 13:55 +0800, Richard Guo wrote:
> Similar to what we did to GROUP BY keys in 0452b461bc, I think we can do
> the same to DISTINCT keys, i.e. reordering DISTINCT keys to match input
> path's pathkeys, which can help reduce cost by avoiding unnecessary
> re-sort, or allowing us
16 matches
Mail list logo
