Proof of concept for MIN/MAX optimization

Started by Tom Laneover 21 years ago4 messagespatches
Jump to latest
#1Tom Lane
tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us

I haven't done the work yet to add a column to pg_aggregate, so this
just knows about optimizing a couple of hard-wired cases (int4 and
text). Other than that it's reasonably complete, I think. Comments?

regards, tom lane

#2Mark Kirkwood
mark.kirkwood@catalyst.net.nz
In reply to: Tom Lane (#1)
Re: Proof of concept for MIN/MAX optimization

Tom Lane wrote:

I haven't done the work yet to add a column to pg_aggregate, so this
just knows about optimizing a couple of hard-wired cases (int4 and
text). Other than that it's reasonably complete, I think. Comments?

Looks good :

regression=# explain select max(unique1) from tenk1;
QUERY PLAN
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Result (cost=0.15..0.16 rows=1 width=0)
InitPlan
-> Limit (cost=0.00..0.15 rows=1 width=4)
-> Index Scan Backward using tenk1_unique1 on tenk1
(cost=0.00..1512.59 rows=10000 width=4)
(4 rows)

The handling of nulls is a little unexpected (still todo?) :

regression=# insert into tenk2 (unique1,unique2) values(null, 10000);
INSERT 0 1
regression=# select max(unique1) from tenk2;
max
-----

(1 row)
regression=# set enable_indexscan=0;
SET
regression=# select max(unique1) from tenk2;
max
------
9999
(1 row)

cheers

Mark

#3Tom Lane
tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us
In reply to: Mark Kirkwood (#2)
Re: Proof of concept for MIN/MAX optimization

Mark Kirkwood <markir@paradise.net.nz> writes:

The handling of nulls is a little unexpected (still todo?) :

Yeah, that was broken in the first draft :-( ... I think it's OK in
the committed version though.

regards, tom lane

#4Mark Kirkwood
mark.kirkwood@catalyst.net.nz
In reply to: Tom Lane (#3)
Re: Proof of concept for MIN/MAX optimization

Tom Lane wrote:

Mark Kirkwood <markir@paradise.net.nz> writes:

The handling of nulls is a little unexpected (still todo?) :

Yeah, that was broken in the first draft :-( ... I think it's OK in
the committed version though.

(post cvs update) yeah - looks good!

regards

Mark