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 (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers >
