Re: [HACKERS] Patch for removng unused targets

> From: Tom Lane [mailto:t...@sss.pgh.pa.us] > Having said all that, there is one situation where this type of approach might > still be useful even after such a fix, and that's KNNGist-style > queries: > > select a,b,c from t order by col <-> constant limit 10; > > In a KNNGist search,

Re: [HACKERS] Patch for removng unused targets

On 08/02/2013 03:45 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> So, Returned With Feedback, or move it to September? > > The patch is certainly not getting committed as-is (at least not by me), > so it would likely be fair to mark it RWF so we can close the commitfest. > I'll still work on a revised version after the

Re: [HACKERS] Patch for removng unused targets

Josh Berkus writes: >> Reading between the lines of the original submission at >> , >> I gather that it's the KNNGist-style case that worries you, so maybe >> it's worth applying this type of patch anyway. I'd want to rejigger >> it to be aware of the cost implications though, at least for >> gro

Re: [HACKERS] Patch for removng unused targets

> Reading between the lines of the original submission at > , > I gather that it's the KNNGist-style case that worries you, so maybe > it's worth applying this type of patch anyway. I'd want to rejigger > it to be aware of the cost implications though, at least for > grouping_planner's choices.

Re: [HACKERS] Patch for removng unused targets

"Etsuro Fujita" writes: > Thank you for the adjustments and comments! In addition to adding comments to > the function, I've improved the code in the function a little bit. Please > find > attached an updated version of the patch. I started looking at this patch (finally). I'm not terribly sa

Re: [HACKERS] Patch for removng unused targets -- PLEASE COMMIT

Alvaro Herrera writes: > Josh Berkus escribió: >> Hello? Hello? Is there a committer in the house? > Uhm, I had written a reply but I think it was lost in the shuffle. I > said that "ready for committer" doesn't mean that the patch is ready to > commit, it means that a committer needs to revie

Re: [HACKERS] Patch for removng unused targets -- PLEASE COMMIT

Josh Berkus escribió: > On 07/29/2013 03:23 PM, Josh Berkus wrote: > > Everyone, > > > > This patch has been marked "ready for committer" since July 2nd. Can > > someone please commit it, and let us close out this CF? > > Hello? Hello? Is there a committer in the house? Uhm, I had written a r

Re: [HACKERS] Patch for removng unused targets -- PLEASE COMMIT

On 07/29/2013 03:23 PM, Josh Berkus wrote: > Everyone, > > This patch has been marked "ready for committer" since July 2nd. Can > someone please commit it, and let us close out this CF? Hello? Hello? Is there a committer in the house? -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.

Re: [HACKERS] Patch for removng unused targets -- PLEASE COMMIT

Everyone, This patch has been marked "ready for committer" since July 2nd. Can someone please commit it, and let us close out this CF? Thanks! -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to

Re: [HACKERS] Patch for removng unused targets

> From: Alvaro Herrera [mailto:alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com] > Etsuro Fujita escribió: > > > From: Hitoshi Harada [mailto:umi.tan...@gmail.com] > > > > > I tried several ways but I couldn't find big problems. Small typo: > > > s/rejunk/resjunk/ > > > > Thank you for the review. Attached is an update

Re: [HACKERS] Patch for removng unused targets

Etsuro Fujita escribió: > > From: Hitoshi Harada [mailto:umi.tan...@gmail.com] > > > I tried several ways but I couldn't find big problems. Small typo: > > s/rejunk/resjunk/ > > Thank you for the review. Attached is an updated version of the patch. Thanks. I gave this a look, and made it some

Re: [HACKERS] Patch for removng unused targets

> From: Hitoshi Harada [mailto:umi.tan...@gmail.com] > I tried several ways but I couldn't find big problems. Small typo: > s/rejunk/resjunk/ Thank you for the review. Attached is an updated version of the patch. Thanks, Best regards, Etsuro Fujita unused-targets-20130621.patch Description:

Re: [HACKERS] Patch for removng unused targets

On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 12:19 AM, Etsuro Fujita wrote: > > From: Hitoshi Harada [mailto:umi.tan...@gmail.com] > > > I guess the patch works fine, but what I'm saying is it might be limited > to > > small use cases. Another instance of this that I can think of is ORDER > BY > clause > > of window

Re: [HACKERS] Patch for removng unused targets

> From: Hitoshi Harada [mailto:umi.tan...@gmail.com] > I guess the patch works fine, but what I'm saying is it might be limited to > small use cases. Another instance of this that I can think of is ORDER BY clause > of window specifications, which you may want to remove from the target list > as

Re: [HACKERS] Patch for removng unused targets

On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 4:49 AM, Etsuro Fujita wrote: > Hi Harada-san, > > ** ** > > Thank you for the review. > > ** ** > > I think that the parse tree has enough information to do this optimization > and that the easiest way to do it is to use the information, though I might > not have u

Re: [HACKERS] Patch for removng unused targets

: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 2:57 PM To: Etsuro Fujita Cc: Tom Lane; Alexander Korotkov; pgsql-hackers Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Patch for removng unused targets On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 5:15 AM, Etsuro Fujita wrote: Hi Alexander, I wrote: > > > From: Tom Lane [mailto:t...@sss.

Re: [HACKERS] Patch for removng unused targets

On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 5:15 AM, Etsuro Fujita wrote: > Hi Alexander, > > I wrote: > > > > From: Tom Lane [mailto:t...@sss.pgh.pa.us] > > > > > > resjunk means that the target is not supposed to be output by the > query. > > > > Since it's there at all, it's presumably referenced by ORDER BY or >

Re: [HACKERS] Patch for removng unused targets

Hi Alexander, Thank you for the check! I marked the patch "ready for committer". Best regards, Etsuro Fujita From: Alexander Korotkov [mailto:aekorot...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 1:26 AM To: Etsuro Fujita Cc: Tom Lane; pgsql-hackers Subject: Re: [HACKERS]

Re: [HACKERS] Patch for removng unused targets

Hi Etsuro! On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Etsuro Fujita wrote: > Hi Alexander, > > I wrote: > > > > From: Tom Lane [mailto:t...@sss.pgh.pa.us] > > > > > > resjunk means that the target is not supposed to be output by the > query. > > > > Since it's there at all, it's presumably referenced by OR

Re: [HACKERS] Patch for removng unused targets

Hi Alexander, I wrote: > > > From: Tom Lane [mailto:t...@sss.pgh.pa.us] > > > > resjunk means that the target is not supposed to be output by the query. > > > Since it's there at all, it's presumably referenced by ORDER BY or GROUP > > > BY or DISTINCT ON, but the meaning of the flag doesn't depe

Re: [HACKERS] Patch for removng unused targets

Hi Alexander, I wrote: > > From: Tom Lane [mailto:t...@sss.pgh.pa.us] > > resjunk means that the target is not supposed to be output by the query. > > Since it's there at all, it's presumably referenced by ORDER BY or GROUP > > BY or DISTINCT ON, but the meaning of the flag doesn't depend on that

Re: [HACKERS] Patch for removng unused targets

> From: Tom Lane [mailto:t...@sss.pgh.pa.us] > Alexander Korotkov writes: > > On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 8:31 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > >> But having said that, I'm wondering (without having read the patch) > >> why you need anything more than the existing "resjunk" field. > > > Actually, I don't know

Re: [HACKERS] Patch for removng unused targets

On 01/22/2013 01:24 PM, Etsuro Fujita wrote: > > I'd like to rework on this optimization and submit a patch at the next > CF. Is that okay? > That sounds very sensible to me, given how busy CF2013-01 is and the remaining time before 9.3. -- Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.

Re: [HACKERS] Patch for removng unused targets

ckers Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Patch for removng unused targets On 12/05/2012 04:15 AM, Alexander Korotkov wrote: On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 11:52 PM, Tom Lane wrote: Alexander Korotkov writes: > On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 8:31 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> But having said that, I'm wondering (

Re: [HACKERS] Patch for removng unused targets

On 12/05/2012 04:15 AM, Alexander Korotkov wrote: > On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 11:52 PM, Tom Lane > wrote: > > Alexander Korotkov > writes: > > On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 8:31 PM, Tom Lane > wrote: > >

Re: [HACKERS] Patch for removng unused targets

On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 11:52 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Alexander Korotkov writes: > > On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 8:31 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > >> But having said that, I'm wondering (without having read the patch) > >> why you need anything more than the existing "resjunk" field. > > > Actually, I don't k

Re: [HACKERS] Patch for removng unused targets

Alexander Korotkov writes: > On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 8:31 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> But having said that, I'm wondering (without having read the patch) >> why you need anything more than the existing "resjunk" field. > Actually, I don't know all the cases when "resjunk" flag is set. Is it > reliable

Re: [HACKERS] Patch for removng unused targets

On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 8:31 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > "Etsuro Fujita" writes: > > Sorry for the delay. I've reviewed the patch. It was applied > > successfully, and it worked well for tests I did including the example > > you showed. I think it's worth the work, but I'm not sure you go > > about

Re: [HACKERS] Patch for removng unused targets

> From: Tom Lane [mailto:t...@sss.pgh.pa.us] > "Etsuro Fujita" writes: > > Sorry for the delay. I've reviewed the patch. It was applied > > successfully, and it worked well for tests I did including the example > > you showed. I think it's worth the work, but I'm not sure you go > > about it i

Re: [HACKERS] Patch for removng unused targets

"Etsuro Fujita" writes: > Sorry for the delay. I've reviewed the patch. It was applied > successfully, and it worked well for tests I did including the example > you showed. I think it's worth the work, but I'm not sure you go > about it in the right way. (I feel the patch decreases code > rea

Re: [HACKERS] Patch for removng unused targets

xander Korotkov Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2012 4:46 PM To: pgsql-hackers; Tom Lane Subject: [HACKERS] Patch for removng unused targets Hi! Attached patch removes unused targets which are used only for order by when data already comes in right order. It introduces resorderbyonly flag

[HACKERS] Patch for removng unused targets

Hi! Attached patch removes unused targets which are used only for order by when data already comes in right order. It introduces resorderbyonly flag of TargetEntry which indicated that entry is used only for ORDER BY clause. If data comes in right order then such entries are removed in grouping_pl