2014-09-09 16:01 GMT+02:00 Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com>:
> On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 11:01 AM, Andrew Gierth
> <and...@tao11.riddles.org.uk> wrote:
> >>>>>> "Heikki" == Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakan...@vmware.com> writes:
> > Heikki> Uh, that's ugly. The EXPLAIN out I mean; as an implementation
> > Heikki> detail chaining the nodes might be reasonable. But the above
> > Heikki> gets unreadable if you have more than a few grouping sets.
> > It's good for highlighting performance issues in EXPLAIN, too.
> Perhaps so, but that doesn't take away from Heikki's point: it's still
> ugly. I don't understand why the sorts can't all be nested under the
> GroupAggregate nodes. We have a number of nodes already (e.g. Append)
> that support an arbitrary number of children, and I don't see why we
> can't do the same thing here.
I don't think so showing sort and aggregation is bad idea. Both can have a
different performance impacts
> Robert Haas
> EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
> The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org)
> To make changes to your subscription: