Gavin Sherry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, 19 Jan 2007, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Er, what primary key would that be exactly?  And even if you had a key,
>> I wouldn't call joining on it trivial; I'd call it expensive ...

> I should have used slightly different language. What I meant to say was,
> both sets are primarily sorted by saledate so they can be merged back
> together. This is why I said it was trivial.

Ah, my misunderstanding.  Then isn't this basically isomorphic to what
I was thinking of, ie, somewhat-smarter Aggref nodes attached to the
existing GroupAggregate plan node?

                        regards, tom lane

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?


Reply via email to