On Wed, Jan 31, 2024 at 5:13 AM David Rowley wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 at 00:44, Richard Guo wrote:
> > This patchset does not aim to introduce anything new; it simply
> > refactors the existing code. The newly added tests are used to show
> > that the code that is touched here is not redund
On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 at 00:44, Richard Guo wrote:
> This patchset does not aim to introduce anything new; it simply
> refactors the existing code. The newly added tests are used to show
> that the code that is touched here is not redundant, but rather
> essential for generating certain paths. I r
On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 7:00 PM David Rowley wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 at 22:39, Richard Guo wrote:
> > So in the v3 patch I've brought back the logic that considers
> > incremental sort on partial paths in gather_grouping_paths(). However,
> > I failed to compose a test case for this scenar
On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 at 22:39, Richard Guo wrote:
> So in the v3 patch I've brought back the logic that considers
> incremental sort on partial paths in gather_grouping_paths(). However,
> I failed to compose a test case for this scenario without having to
> generate a huge table. So in the v3 pa
On Mon, Jul 17, 2023 at 4:55 PM Richard Guo wrote:
> But I did not find a query that makes an incremental sort in this case.
> After trying for a while it seems to me that we do not need to consider
> incremental sort in this case, because for a partial path of a grouped
> or partially grouped re
On Mon, 17 Jul 2023 at 14:25, Richard Guo wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 29, 2023 at 4:00 AM David Rowley wrote:
>>
>> If you write some tests for this code, it will be useful to prove that
>> it actually does something, and also that it does not break again in
>> the future. I don't really want to jus
On Thu, Dec 28, 2023 at 4:01 PM Shubham Khanna
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 28, 2023 at 4:00 PM Richard Guo wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 29, 2023 at 4:00 AM David Rowley wrote:
> >>
> >> If you write some tests for this code, it will be useful to prove that
> >> it actually does something, and also
On Thu, Dec 28, 2023 at 4:00 PM Richard Guo wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 29, 2023 at 4:00 AM David Rowley wrote:
>>
>> If you write some tests for this code, it will be useful to prove that
>> it actually does something, and also that it does not break again in
>> the future. I don't really want to j
On Mon, Jul 10, 2023 at 5:37 PM Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> > On 28 Mar 2023, at 21:59, David Rowley wrote:
> > I'll mark this as waiting on author while you work on that.
>
> Richard: have you had a chance to incorporate the tests proposed by David
> in
> this thread into your patch?
I just up
On Wed, Mar 29, 2023 at 4:00 AM David Rowley wrote:
> If you write some tests for this code, it will be useful to prove that
> it actually does something, and also that it does not break again in
> the future. I don't really want to just blindly copy the pattern used
> in 3c6fc5820 for creating i
> On 28 Mar 2023, at 21:59, David Rowley wrote:
> I'll mark this as waiting on author while you work on that.
Richard: have you had a chance to incorporate the tests proposed by David in
this thread into your patch?
--
Daniel Gustafsson
On Tue, 21 Feb 2023 at 22:02, Richard Guo wrote:
> Looking at the codes now I have some concern that what we do in
> create_ordered_paths for partial paths may have already been done in
> generate_useful_gather_paths, especially when query_pathkeys is equal to
> sort_pathkeys. Not sure if this is
On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 10:53 AM David Rowley wrote:
> I looked at the three patches and have some thoughts:
Thanks for reviewing!
> 0001:
>
> Does the newly added test have to be this complex? I think it might
> be better to just come up with the most simple test you can that uses
> an incr
On Thu, Feb 16, 2023 at 7:50 PM Etsuro Fujita
wrote:
> I'm not sure this is a good idea, because the epq_path will return at
> most one tuple in an EPQ recheck.
>
> The reason why an extra Sort node is injected into the epq_path is
> only label it with the correct sort order to use it as an input
Hi Richard,
On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 8:06 PM Richard Guo wrote:
> In add_paths_with_pathkeys_for_rel, we do not try incremental sort atop
> of the epq_path, which I think we can do. I'm not sure how useful this
> is in real world since the epq_path is used only for EPQ checks, but it
> seems doin
I looked at the three patches and have some thoughts:
0001:
Does the newly added test have to be this complex? I think it might
be better to just come up with the most simple test you can that uses
an incremental sort. I really can't think why the test requires a FOR
UPDATE, to test incremental
While reviewing [1], I visited other places where sorting is needed, and
have some findings.
In add_paths_with_pathkeys_for_rel, we do not try incremental sort atop
of the epq_path, which I think we can do. I'm not sure how useful this
is in real world since the epq_path is used only for EPQ chec
17 matches
Mail list logo
