On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 5:27 PM, David Rowley <dgrowle...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> It's probably far more worth it for the bool and/or aggregates. We
>> could just
>> >> keep track of the values aggregated and the count of values as "true"
>> and return
>> >> true if those are the same in the case of "AND", then check the true
>> >> is > 0 in the case of "OR". I'd feel more strongly to go and do that
>> if I'd
>> >> actually ever used those aggregates for anything.
>> That, OTOH, would be worthwhile I think. I'll go do that, though probably
>> not today. I hope to get to it sometime tomorrow.
> I've commited a patch to the github repo to do this.
> but I'm not sure if we can keep it as I had to remove the sort op as I
> explained above.
I think I'm going to have to revert the patch which implements the inverse
transition function for bool_and and bool_or.
I tested on an instance of 9.3.2 and the following queries use index scans.
create table booltest (b boolean not null);
insert into booltest (b) select false from generate_series(1,20000) g(n);
insert into booltest (b) values(true);
create index booltest_b_idx ON booltest(b);
vacuum analyze booltest;
explain select bool_or(b) from booltest;
explain select bool_and(b) from booltest;
I'm guessing there is no way to have an internal state type on the
aggregate and a sort operator on the aggregate.
I wonder if it is worth creating naive inverse transition functions similar
to max()'s and min()'s inverse transition functions. I guess on average
they've got about a 50% chance of being used and likely for some work loads
it would be a win.
What's your thoughts?