On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 08:38:07AM +0200, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2015-05-14 02:32:04 -0400, Noah Misch wrote: > > On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 07:50:31AM +0200, Andres Freund wrote: > > > Andrew, is that a structure you could live with, or not? > > > > > > Others, what do you think? > > > > Andrew and I discussed that very structure upthread: > > > http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/87d26zd9k8....@news-spur.riddles.org.uk > > I don't really believe that that'd necesarily be true. I think if done > like I sketched it'll likely end up being simpler than the currently > proposed code. I also don't see why this would make combining hashing > and sorting any more complex than now. If anything the contrary. > > > http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20141231085845.ga2148...@tornado.leadboat.com > > http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20141231210553.gb2159...@tornado.leadboat.com > > > > I still believe the words I wrote in my two messages cited. > > I.e. that you think it's a sane approach, despite the criticism?
Yes. I won't warrant that it proves better, but it looks promising. Covering hash aggregation might entail a large preparatory refactoring of nodeHash.c, but beyond development cost I can't malign that. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
