>> ), which seem reasonable. But > then I started testing performance, and I found cases where the > improvement is not nearly what I expected. > > The example cited at the start of this thread is indeed orders of > magnitude faster than HEAD: > > SELECT SUM(n::int) OVER (ROWS BETWEEN CURRENT ROW AND UNBOUNDED FOLLOWING) > F > > > > > > > I'm not sure how much additional work is required to sort this out, > but to me it looks more realistic to target 9.5 than 9.4, so at this > point I tend to think that the patch ought to be marked as returned > with feedback. > > Thoughts? > > Regards, > Dean
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
