Loading...

XML

Word

Printable

JSON

Backwards Compatibility:
Fully Compatible
Sprint:
Query 2017-04-17, Query 2017-05-08, Query 2017-05-29, Query 2019-03-11, Query 2019-03-25, Query 2019-04-08
Case:
Linked BF Score:
0
Confidence Status:
None
Work Order:
3

An aggregation pipeline can be used to represent a query, like the following:

db.example.aggregate([{$project: {excluded: 0}}, {$match: {predicate: true}}]);

In these cases, it would be more efficient to skip the aggregation layer, and execute the entire computation using a query.

It is expected that pipelines like the above pipeline will be much more common once non-materialized views are introduced in ~~SERVER-142~~.

causes

PHPLIB-431 Relax aggregate explain test for 4.2 servers

RUBY-1788 Aggregate explain broken on 4.2 server

is depended on by

SERVER-45069 Add flag in the log when aggregation is using query code path

is duplicated by

SERVER-36983 Views are unnecessary slow, even for very simple views

is related to

SERVER-40253 Pipelines with text search queries should be eligible for being optimized away

SERVER-40254 Collapse project stage in a pipeline so the projection occurs in DocumentSourceCursor

SERVER-40323 Plan analyzer helper functions cannot correctly handle explain output for sharded collections

SERVER-36723 $limit should push down into the PlanStage layer, rather than coalescing with DocumentSourceCursor

related to

SERVER-7568 Aggregation framework favors non-blocking sorts

(3 is related to, 1 related to, 1 mentioned in)

Assignee:: Anton Korshunov
Reporter:: Charlie Swanson
Participants:: Anton Korshunov, Asya Kamsky, Charlie Swanson, Craig Homa, Githook User, Kyle Suarez, Mathias Stearn
Votes:: 2 Vote for this issue
Watchers:: 24 Start watching this issue