On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 10:46:16AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > I still find the ChainAggregate approach too ugly at a system structural > level to accept, regardless of Noah's argument about number of I/O cycles > consumed. We'll be paying for that in complexity and bugs into the > indefinite future, and I wonder if it isn't going to foreclose some other > "performance opportunities" as well.
Among GROUPING SETS GroupAggregate implementations, I bet there's a nonempty intersection between those having maintainable design and those having optimal I/O usage, optimal memory usage, and optimal number of sorts. Let's put more effort into finding it. I'm hearing that the shared tuplestore is ChainAggregate's principal threat to system structure; is that right? -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
