public inbox for [email protected]  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed

From: Ankit Kumar Pandey <[email protected]>
To: Vik Fearing <[email protected]>
To: David Rowley <[email protected]>
Cc: pghackers <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Todo: Teach planner to evaluate multiple windows in the optimal order
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2023 21:00:50 +0530
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
	<CAApHDvp=r1LnEKCmWCYaruMPL-jP4j_sdc8yeFYwaDT1ac5GsQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<[email protected]>
	<CAApHDvq=g2=ny59f1bvwRVvupsgPHK-KjLPBsSL25fVuGZ4idQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>


On 05/01/23 07:48, Vik Fearing wrote:
> On 1/4/23 13:07, Ankit Kumar Pandey wrote:
>> Also, one thing, consider the following query:
>>
>> explain analyze select row_number() over (order by a,b),count(*) over 
>> (order by a) from abcd order by a,b,c;
>>
>> In this case, sorting is done on (a,b) followed by incremental sort 
>> on c at final stage.
>>
>> If we do just one sort: a,b,c at first stage then there won't be need 
>> to do another sort (incremental one).
>
>
> This could give incorrect results.  Consider the following query:
>
> postgres=# select a, b, c, rank() over (order by a, b)
> from (values (1, 2, 1), (1, 2, 2), (1, 2, 1)) as abcd (a, b, c)
> order by a, b, c;
>
>  a | b | c | rank
> ---+---+---+------
>  1 | 2 | 1 |    1
>  1 | 2 | 1 |    1
>  1 | 2 | 2 |    1
> (3 rows)
>
>
> If you change the window's ordering like you suggest, you get this 
> different result:
>
>
> postgres=# select a, b, c, rank() over (order by a, b, c)
> from (values (1, 2, 1), (1, 2, 2), (1, 2, 1)) as abcd (a, b, c)
> order by a, b, c;
>
>  a | b | c | rank
> ---+---+---+------
>  1 | 2 | 1 |    1
>  1 | 2 | 1 |    1
>  1 | 2 | 2 |    3
> (3 rows)
>
>
We are already doing something like I mentioned.

Consider this example:

explain SELECT rank() OVER (ORDER BY a), count(*) OVER (ORDER BY a,b) 
FROM abcd;
                                 QUERY PLAN
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
  WindowAgg  (cost=83.80..127.55 rows=1250 width=24)
    ->  WindowAgg  (cost=83.80..108.80 rows=1250 width=16)
          ->  Sort  (cost=83.80..86.92 rows=1250 width=8)
                Sort Key: a, b
                ->  Seq Scan on abcd  (cost=0.00..19.50 rows=1250 width=8)
(5 rows)


If it is okay to do extra sort for first window function (rank) here, 
why would it be

any different in case which I mentioned?

My suggestion rest on assumption that for a window function, say

rank() OVER (ORDER BY a), ordering of columns (other than column 'a') 
shouldn't matter.


-- 
Regards,
Ankit Kumar Pandey

view thread (8+ messages)  latest in thread

reply

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
  reply via email

  To: [email protected]
  Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
  Subject: Re: Todo: Teach planner to evaluate multiple windows in the optimal order
  In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox