Re: [HACKERS] Patch for removng unused targets

> From: Tom Lane [mailto:t...@sss.pgh.pa.us] > Having said all that, there is one situation where this type of approach might > still be useful even after such a fix, and that's KNNGist-style > queries: > > select a,b,c from t order by col <-> constant limit 10; > > In a KNNGist search,

Re: [HACKERS] Patch for removng unused targets

On 08/02/2013 03:45 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> So, Returned With Feedback, or move it to September? > > The patch is certainly not getting committed as-is (at least not by me), > so it would likely be fair to mark it RWF so we can close the commitfest. > I'll still work on a revised version after the

Re: [HACKERS] Patch for removng unused targets

Josh Berkus writes: >> Reading between the lines of the original submission at >> , >> I gather that it's the KNNGist-style case that worries you, so maybe >> it's worth applying this type of patch anyway. I'd want to rejigger >> it to be aware of the cost implications though, at least for >> gro

Re: [HACKERS] Patch for removng unused targets

> Reading between the lines of the original submission at > , > I gather that it's the KNNGist-style case that worries you, so maybe > it's worth applying this type of patch anyway. I'd want to rejigger > it to be aware of the cost implications though, at least for > grouping_planner's choices.

Re: [HACKERS] Patch for removng unused targets

"Etsuro Fujita" writes: > Thank you for the adjustments and comments! In addition to adding comments to > the function, I've improved the code in the function a little bit. Please > find > attached an updated version of the patch. I started looking at this patch (finally). I'm not terribly sa

Re: [HACKERS] Patch for removng unused targets -- PLEASE COMMIT

Alvaro Herrera writes: > Josh Berkus escribió: >> Hello? Hello? Is there a committer in the house? > Uhm, I had written a reply but I think it was lost in the shuffle. I > said that "ready for committer" doesn't mean that the patch is ready to > commit, it means that a committer needs to revie

Re: [HACKERS] Patch for removng unused targets -- PLEASE COMMIT

Josh Berkus escribió: > On 07/29/2013 03:23 PM, Josh Berkus wrote: > > Everyone, > > > > This patch has been marked "ready for committer" since July 2nd. Can > > someone please commit it, and let us close out this CF? > > Hello? Hello? Is there a committer in the house? Uhm, I had written a r

Re: [HACKERS] Patch for removng unused targets -- PLEASE COMMIT

On 07/29/2013 03:23 PM, Josh Berkus wrote: > Everyone, > > This patch has been marked "ready for committer" since July 2nd. Can > someone please commit it, and let us close out this CF? Hello? Hello? Is there a committer in the house? -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.

Re: [HACKERS] Patch for removng unused targets -- PLEASE COMMIT

Everyone, This patch has been marked "ready for committer" since July 2nd. Can someone please commit it, and let us close out this CF? Thanks! -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to

Re: [HACKERS] Patch for removng unused targets

> From: Alvaro Herrera [mailto:alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com] > Etsuro Fujita escribió: > > > From: Hitoshi Harada [mailto:umi.tan...@gmail.com] > > > > > I tried several ways but I couldn't find big problems. Small typo: > > > s/rejunk/resjunk/ > > > > Thank you for the review. Attached is an update

Re: [HACKERS] Patch for removng unused targets

Etsuro Fujita escribió: > > From: Hitoshi Harada [mailto:umi.tan...@gmail.com] > > > I tried several ways but I couldn't find big problems. Small typo: > > s/rejunk/resjunk/ > > Thank you for the review. Attached is an updated version of the patch. Thanks. I gave this a look, and made it some

Re: [HACKERS] Patch for removng unused targets

> From: Hitoshi Harada [mailto:umi.tan...@gmail.com] > I tried several ways but I couldn't find big problems. Small typo: > s/rejunk/resjunk/ Thank you for the review. Attached is an updated version of the patch. Thanks, Best regards, Etsuro Fujita unused-targets-20130621.patch Description:

Re: [HACKERS] Patch for removng unused targets

On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 12:19 AM, Etsuro Fujita wrote: > > From: Hitoshi Harada [mailto:umi.tan...@gmail.com] > > > I guess the patch works fine, but what I'm saying is it might be limited > to > > small use cases. Another instance of this that I can think of is ORDER > BY > clause > > of window

Re: [HACKERS] Patch for removng unused targets

> From: Hitoshi Harada [mailto:umi.tan...@gmail.com] > I guess the patch works fine, but what I'm saying is it might be limited to > small use cases. Another instance of this that I can think of is ORDER BY clause > of window specifications, which you may want to remove from the target list > as

Re: [HACKERS] Patch for removng unused targets

On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 4:49 AM, Etsuro Fujita wrote: > Hi Harada-san, > > ** ** > > Thank you for the review. > > ** ** > > I think that the parse tree has enough information to do this optimization > and that the easiest way to do it is to use the information, though I might > not have u

Re: [HACKERS] Patch for removng unused targets

: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 2:57 PM To: Etsuro Fujita Cc: Tom Lane; Alexander Korotkov; pgsql-hackers Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Patch for removng unused targets On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 5:15 AM, Etsuro Fujita wrote: Hi Alexander, I wrote: > > > From: Tom Lane [mailto:t...@sss.

Re: [HACKERS] Patch for removng unused targets

On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 5:15 AM, Etsuro Fujita wrote: > Hi Alexander, > > I wrote: > > > > From: Tom Lane [mailto:t...@sss.pgh.pa.us] > > > > > > resjunk means that the target is not supposed to be output by the > query. > > > > Since it's there at all, it's presumably referenced by ORDER BY or >

Re: [HACKERS] Patch for removng unused targets

Hi Alexander, Thank you for the check! I marked the patch "ready for committer". Best regards, Etsuro Fujita From: Alexander Korotkov [mailto:aekorot...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 1:26 AM To: Etsuro Fujita Cc: Tom Lane; pgsql-hackers Subject: Re: [HACKERS]

Re: [HACKERS] Patch for removng unused targets

Hi Etsuro! On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Etsuro Fujita wrote: > Hi Alexander, > > I wrote: > > > > From: Tom Lane [mailto:t...@sss.pgh.pa.us] > > > > > > resjunk means that the target is not supposed to be output by the > query. > > > > Since it's there at all, it's presumably referenced by OR

Re: [HACKERS] Patch for removng unused targets

Hi Alexander, I wrote: > > > From: Tom Lane [mailto:t...@sss.pgh.pa.us] > > > > resjunk means that the target is not supposed to be output by the query. > > > Since it's there at all, it's presumably referenced by ORDER BY or GROUP > > > BY or DISTINCT ON, but the meaning of the flag doesn't depe

Re: [HACKERS] Patch for removng unused targets

Hi Alexander, I wrote: > > From: Tom Lane [mailto:t...@sss.pgh.pa.us] > > resjunk means that the target is not supposed to be output by the query. > > Since it's there at all, it's presumably referenced by ORDER BY or GROUP > > BY or DISTINCT ON, but the meaning of the flag doesn't depend on that

Re: [HACKERS] Patch for removng unused targets

> From: Tom Lane [mailto:t...@sss.pgh.pa.us] > Alexander Korotkov writes: > > On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 8:31 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > >> But having said that, I'm wondering (without having read the patch) > >> why you need anything more than the existing "resjunk" field. > > > Actually, I don't know

Re: [HACKERS] Patch for removng unused targets

On 01/22/2013 01:24 PM, Etsuro Fujita wrote: > > I'd like to rework on this optimization and submit a patch at the next > CF. Is that okay? > That sounds very sensible to me, given how busy CF2013-01 is and the remaining time before 9.3. -- Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.

Re: [HACKERS] Patch for removng unused targets

ckers Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Patch for removng unused targets On 12/05/2012 04:15 AM, Alexander Korotkov wrote: On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 11:52 PM, Tom Lane wrote: Alexander Korotkov writes: > On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 8:31 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> But having said that, I'm wondering (

Re: [HACKERS] Patch for removng unused targets

On 12/05/2012 04:15 AM, Alexander Korotkov wrote: > On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 11:52 PM, Tom Lane > wrote: > > Alexander Korotkov > writes: > > On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 8:31 PM, Tom Lane > wrote: > >

Re: [HACKERS] Patch for removng unused targets

On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 11:52 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Alexander Korotkov writes: > > On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 8:31 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > >> But having said that, I'm wondering (without having read the patch) > >> why you need anything more than the existing "resjunk" field. > > > Actually, I don't k

Re: [HACKERS] Patch for removng unused targets

Alexander Korotkov writes: > On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 8:31 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> But having said that, I'm wondering (without having read the patch) >> why you need anything more than the existing "resjunk" field. > Actually, I don't know all the cases when "resjunk" flag is set. Is it > reliable

Re: [HACKERS] Patch for removng unused targets

On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 8:31 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > "Etsuro Fujita" writes: > > Sorry for the delay. I've reviewed the patch. It was applied > > successfully, and it worked well for tests I did including the example > > you showed. I think it's worth the work, but I'm not sure you go > > about

Re: [HACKERS] Patch for removng unused targets

> From: Tom Lane [mailto:t...@sss.pgh.pa.us] > "Etsuro Fujita" writes: > > Sorry for the delay. I've reviewed the patch. It was applied > > successfully, and it worked well for tests I did including the example > > you showed. I think it's worth the work, but I'm not sure you go > > about it i

Re: [HACKERS] Patch for removng unused targets

"Etsuro Fujita" writes: > Sorry for the delay. I've reviewed the patch. It was applied > successfully, and it worked well for tests I did including the example > you showed. I think it's worth the work, but I'm not sure you go > about it in the right way. (I feel the patch decreases code > rea

Re: [HACKERS] Patch for removng unused targets

Sorry for the delay. I've reviewed the patch. It was applied successfully, and it worked well for tests I did including the example you showed. I think it's worth the work, but I'm not sure you go about it in the right way. (I feel the patch decreases code readability more than it gives an adva