On 5 April 2014 04:18, Tom Lane wrote:
> Greg Stark writes:
>> Well in many cases stype will just be internal for many of them. That
>> doesn't mean they're the same.
>
>> Hm, I suppose it might if they have the same sfunc.
>
>> This is actually where I started but we concluded that we needed som
Well in many cases stype will just be internal for many of them. That
doesn't mean they're the same.
Hm, I suppose it might if they have the same sfunc.
This is actually where I started but we concluded that we needed some
declaration that the aggregates were actually related and would interpret
Greg Stark writes:
> Well in many cases stype will just be internal for many of them. That
> doesn't mean they're the same.
> Hm, I suppose it might if they have the same sfunc.
> This is actually where I started but we concluded that we needed some
> declaration that the aggregates were actuall
Greg Stark writes:
> The basic idea is to separate the all the properties of the aggregate
> functions except the final function from the final function into a
> separate object. Giving the optimizer the knowledge that multiple
> aggregate functions use the share the same basic machinery and
> sem
Simon, Dmitri, Peter Eisentraut, and I were chatting at PGConfNYC and
we had an idea for something interesting to do with aggregates.
Interestingly Simon and I came at this from two different directions
but realized we needed the same functionality to implement what we
wanted.
The basic idea is to
