[ 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