Gregory Stark writes:
> Here's a copy of the merge-append patch that I sent months ago merged up to
> head. I haven't really added any additional functionality since then.
I looked at the planner part of this a little bit. I think that it's
confusing "an append that produces an ordered result" w
On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 2:26 PM, Greg Stark wrote:
>
> more complex examples would trigger it naturally such as:
>
> select * from partitioned_table where active order by indexed_column
> (with an index on indexed_column where active)
>
> or
>
> select * from partitioned_table where indexed_column
On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 8:12 PM, Jaime
Casanova wrote:
> i was trying to test this one but i can't find a query that produces a
> diferent plan than in 8.4.0, attached my current test just in case...
> what kind of query is this intended to help?
You may have to disable enable_seqscan to get simpl
On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 7:23 PM, Greg Stark wrote:
>>>
>>> Here's a copy of the merge-append patch that I sent months ago merged up to
>>> head. I haven't really added any additional functionality since then.
>>
>> Can you provide some more details about the objective of this patch? Or a
>> link to
I've added this to the July commitfest.
Gregory Stark wrote:
> Here's a copy of the merge-append patch that I sent months ago merged up to
> head. I haven't really added any additional functionality since then.
>
> Heikki suggested I separate the Append and MergeAppend nodes into two executor
> n
Can you provide some more details about the objective of this patch? Or
a link to previous discussion?
Suppose, Greg's patch could be modified to support order OR index scans:
SELECT ... WHERE (c > 10 AND c < 20) OR (c > 100 AND C < 110) ORDER BY c DESC
with plan:
Result
-> Append
->
On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 10:34 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Jul 5, 2009, at 10:02 AM, Gregory Stark wrote:
>>
>> Here's a copy of the merge-append patch that I sent months ago merged up to
>> head. I haven't really added any additional functionality since then.
>
> Can you provide some more details a
On Jul 5, 2009, at 10:02 AM, Gregory Stark wrote:
Here's a copy of the merge-append patch that I sent months ago
merged up to
head. I haven't really added any additional functionality since then.
Heikki suggested I separate the Append and MergeAppend nodes into
two executor
nodes. I had tha
Here's a copy of the merge-append patch that I sent months ago merged up to
head. I haven't really added any additional functionality since then.
Heikki suggested I separate the Append and MergeAppend nodes into two executor
nodes. I had that half done in my tree but looking it over it leads to a
Here's a copy of the merge-append patch that I sent months ago merged up to
head. I haven't really added any additional functionality since then.
Heikki suggested I separate the Append and MergeAppend nodes into two executor
nodes. I had that half done in my tree but looking it over it leads to a
10 matches
Mail list logo
