[ please do not top-reply ]
Hadi Moshayedi <h...@moshayedi.net> writes:
> On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 6:25 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Uh, what? Fooling around with the implementation of avg() should surely
>> not change any planning decisions.
> I am not sure how this works, but I also changed numeric sum(), and the
> views in question had a numeric sum() column. Can that have any impact?
[ looks at patch... ] Oh, I see what's affecting the plan: you changed
the aggtranstypes to internal for a bunch of aggregates. That's not
very good, because right now the planner takes that to mean that the
aggregate could eat a lot of space. We don't want that to happen for
these aggregates, I think.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
