On Thursday, August 14, 2014, Jeff Davis <pg...@j-davis.com> wrote: > On Thu, 2014-08-14 at 10:06 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > If you're following the HashJoin model, then what you do is the same > thing > > it does: you write the input tuple back out to the pending batch file for > > the hash partition that now contains key 1001, whence it will be > processed > > when you get to that partition. I don't see that there's any special > case > > here. > > HashJoin only deals with tuples. With HashAgg, you have to deal with a > mix of tuples and partially-computed aggregate state values. Not > impossible, but it is a little more awkward than HashJoin. > > +1
Not to mention future cases if we start maintaining multiple state values,in regarded to grouping sets. Regards, Atri -- Regards, Atri *l'apprenant*
