Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Speeding up aggregates

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>
Cc: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Speeding up aggregates
Date: 2002-12-09 21:26:32
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-performance
Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> writes:
> Just to follow up on my last post, I did indeed find that bumping up sort_mem
> caused a switch back to HashAggregate, and a big improvement:

> parts=# explain analyze select i.part_id, sum(w.qty_oh) as total_oh from inv 
> i, iwhs w where i.part_id = w.part_id group by i.part_id having sum(w.qty_oh) > 0;
>                                                           QUERY PLAN
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>   HashAggregate  (cost=5254.46..5432.10 rows=35528 width=36) (actual 
> time=1286.89..1399.36 rows=4189 loops=1)
>     Filter: (sum(qty_oh) > 0::double precision)
>     ->  Hash Join  (cost=1319.10..4710.31 rows=72553 width=36) (actual 
> time=163.36..947.54 rows=72548 loops=1)

How many rows out if you drop the HAVING clause?

The planner's choice of which to use is dependent on its estimate of the
required hashtable size, which is proportional to its guess about how
many distinct groups there will be.  The above output doesn't tell us
that however, only how many groups passed the HAVING clause.  I'm
curious about the quality of this estimate, since the code to try to
generate not-completely-bogus group count estimates is all new ...

			regards, tom lane

In response to


pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: eric soroosDate: 2002-12-09 21:42:02
Subject: Re: questions about disk configurations
Previous:From: Joe ConwayDate: 2002-12-09 21:04:18
Subject: Re: Speeding up aggregates

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group