Richard:
Thanks for reviving this patch and for all of your work on it! Eager
aggregation pushdown will be beneficial for my work and I'm hoping to see
it land.
I was playing around with v9 of the patches and was specifically curious
about this previous statement...
>This patch also makes eager
n (I haven't thought deeply about it, TBH), I did find this
result pretty interesting.
-Paul
On Wed, Jul 10, 2024 at 1:27 AM Richard Guo wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 7, 2024 at 10:45 AM Paul George
> wrote:
> > Thanks for reviving this patch and for all of your work on it! Eager
>
Thanks for the work!
> Since a subquery is a volatile expression, each of its instances
should be evaluated separately.
This seems like a valid point, though "query 2" below which groups over a
RANDOM() column and outputs an additional RANDOM() column a potential,
albeit contrived, counter-exampl
Hackers,
I wanted to surface a discussion in [1] regarding the expected behavior of
GROUP BY with VOLATILE expressions. There seems to be a discrepancy between
how volatile functions (RANDOM(), also confirmed with TIMEOFDAY()) and
subqueries are evaluated in groups. In the examples below, volatile
urkiness, is it fair then to say that drawing
parallels between how GROUP BY subquery is handled is moot?
-Paul-
On Fri, Jul 19, 2024 at 7:48 AM David G. Johnston <
david.g.johns...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 19, 2024 at 7:20 AM Paul George
> wrote:
>
>>
>> I want
But I don't think either cover the additional, albeit nuanced, case of
volatile scalar subqueries.
-Paul-
On Fri, Jul 19, 2024 at 2:28 PM David G. Johnston <
david.g.johns...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 19, 2024 at 2:21 PM Paul George
> wrote:
>
>> Great, thanks for th
