On Tue, 10 Jan 2023 at 16:07, Richard Guo wrote:
> Sorry I didn't make myself clear. I mean currently on HEAD in planner.c
> from line 4847 to line 4857, we have the code to make sure we always use
> the more rigorous clause for explicit-sort case. I think this code is
> not necessary, because
On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 10:14 AM David Rowley wrote:
> > /* For explicit-sort case, always use the more rigorous clause */
> > if (list_length(root->distinct_pathkeys) <
> > list_length(root->sort_pathkeys))
> > {
> > needed_pathkeys =
Thanks for having a look at this.
On Tue, 10 Jan 2023 at 02:28, Richard Guo wrote:
> +1 for the changes. A minor comment is that previously on HEAD for
> SELECT DISTINCT case, if we have to do an explicit full sort atop the
> cheapest path, we try to make sure to always use the more rigorous
>
On Sat, Jan 7, 2023 at 5:47 PM David Rowley wrote:
> While working on the regression tests added in a14a58329, I noticed
> that DISTINCT does not make use of Incremental Sort. It'll only ever
> do full sorts on the cheapest input path or make use of a path that's
> already got the required
While working on the regression tests added in a14a58329, I noticed
that DISTINCT does not make use of Incremental Sort. It'll only ever
do full sorts on the cheapest input path or make use of a path that's
already got the required pathkeys. Also, I see that
create_final_distinct_paths() is a
