On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 10:55 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 3:23 PM, David Fetter <da...@fetter.org> wrote: >> I'd bet on lack of tuits. > > I expect that was part of it. Another thing to consider is that, for > numeric aggregates, the transition values don't generally get larger > as you aggregate, but for something like string_agg(), they will. > It's not clear how much work we'll really save by parallelizing that > sort of thing. Maybe it will be great?
+1, I was thinking about the same. There might be some cases when the output of array_agg/string_agg is not a lot wider but the underlying scans are large e.g. having clause containing another aggregate and very small group sizes. I am not sure how frequent are such usecases. -- Best Wishes, Ashutosh Bapat EnterpriseDB Corporation The Postgres Database Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers