MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <ZQhYYRhUxpW3PSf9@telsasoft.com> <CAMbWs48X+cK2pEaZDVVjd+nOJzb1dN1CO1OKz+6D0FX2OTCGbg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAApHDvpJJigQRW29TppTOPYp+Aui0mtd3MpfRxyKv=N-tB62jQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAApHDvo7RzcQYw-gnkZr6QCijCqf8vJLkJ4XFk-KawvyAw109Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAApHDvqoMf_kxQKON+FLQh8DbMKe62R=OdrZoenb6xDYWmQVUQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMbWs48VKgJyqfDNtKsYnNsPYWqA=stPKenehVz1NN0HTFV9mg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAApHDvrAHkghCDNFG5+K2adWCDCC9cdZT2KZamVRkqYy31kL9w@mail.gmail.com> <CAApHDvqira92LLPbW37azL+fDEm7yvWni89YekB9G751W7nEBw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAApHDvqira92LLPbW37azL+fDEm7yvWni89YekB9G751W7nEBw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Richard Guo <guofenglinux@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2023 13:41:36 +0800
Message-ID: <CAMbWs4_B93iGoU_CfNHjbCAL_2T0LnEog2ftXyjBvMePLn3TAQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: pg16: XX000: could not find pathkey item to sort
To: David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>
Cc: Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000d0b5380607420b50"
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAMbWs4_B93iGoU_CfNHjbCAL_2T0LnEog2ftXyjBvMePLn3TAQ%40mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

--000000000000d0b5380607420b50
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, Oct 9, 2023 at 12:13=E2=80=AFPM David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>=
 wrote:

> I've now pushed the patch that trims off the Pathkeys for the ORDER BY
> / DISTINCT aggregates.


Thanks for pushing!


> Those results are a bit noisy.  Perhaps a few more runs might yield
> more consistency, but it seems that there's not too much overhead to
> it. If I take the minimum value out of the 3 runs from each, it comes
> to about 1.5% extra time spent in planning.  Perhaps that's OK.


I agree that the overhead is acceptable, especially it only happens in
USE_ASSERT_CHECKING builds.

Thanks
Richard

--000000000000d0b5380607420b50
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D"ltr"><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div=
 dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Mon, Oct 9, 2023 at 12:13=E2=80=AFPM D=
avid Rowley &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:dgrowleyml@gmail.com">dgrowleyml@gmail.co=
m</a>&gt; wrote:</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px=
 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
I&#39;ve now pushed the patch that trims off the Pathkeys for the ORDER BY<=
br>
/ DISTINCT aggregates.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>Thanks for pushing!<=
br></div><div>=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin=
:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"=
>
Those results are a bit noisy.=C2=A0 Perhaps a few more runs might yield<br=
>
more consistency, but it seems that there&#39;s not too much overhead to<br=
>
it. If I take the minimum value out of the 3 runs from each, it comes<br>
to about 1.5% extra time spent in planning.=C2=A0 Perhaps that&#39;s OK.</b=
lockquote><div><br></div><div>I agree that the overhead is acceptable, espe=
cially it only happens in<br>USE_ASSERT_CHECKING builds.<br><br>Thanks<br>R=
ichard<br></div></div></div>

--000000000000d0b5380607420b50--