Re: Trouble with hashagg spill I/O pattern and costing

From: Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>
Subject: Re: Trouble with hashagg spill I/O pattern and costing
Date: 2020-06-05 23:17:26
Message-ID: 20200605231726.ctijgmhncyie46ik@development
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Jun 05, 2020 at 06:51:34PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>On 2020-Jun-06, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jun 05, 2020 at 05:19:43PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>>
>> > Is this patch the only thing missing before this open item can be
>> > considered closed?
>>
>> I've already pushed this as 4cad2534da6d17067d98cf04be2dfc1bda8f2cd0,
>> sorry for not mentioning it in this thread explicitly.
>
>That's great to know, thanks. The other bit necessary to answer my
>question is whether do we need to do anything else in this area -- if
>no, then we can mark the open item as closed:
>https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PostgreSQL_13_Open_Items#Open_Issues
>

Hmmm, good question.

There was some discussion about maybe tweaking the costing model to make
it a bit more pessimistic (assuming more random I/O or something like
that), but I'm not sure it's still needed. Increasing random_page_cost
for the temp tablespace did the trick for me.

So I'd say we can mark it as closed ...

regards

--
Tomas Vondra http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2020-06-06 00:19:26 Re: Atomic operations within spinlocks
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2020-06-05 22:51:34 Re: Trouble with hashagg spill I/O pattern and costing