| From: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Tomas Vondra <tv(at)fuzzy(dot)cz>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: hashagg slowdown due to spill changes |
| Date: | 2020-06-12 23:06:25 |
| Message-ID: | 20200612230625.fezrlwfsgkctk7ok@development |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 03:29:08PM -0700, Jeff Davis wrote:
>On Fri, 2020-06-12 at 14:37 -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
>> I don't see why it's ok to force an additional projection in the very
>> common case of hashaggs over a few rows. So I think we need to
>> rethink
>> 4cad2534da6.
>
>One possibility is to project only spilled tuples, more similar to
>Melanie's patch from a while ago:
>
>
>https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAAKRu_aefEsv+UkQWqu+ioEnoiL2LJu9Diuh9BR8MbyXuZ0j4A@mail.gmail.com
>
>Which makes sense, but it's also more code.
>
I agree, we should revert 4cad2534da and only project tuples when we
actually need to spill them. Did any of the WIP patches actually
implement that, or do we need to write that patch from scratch?
regards
--
Tomas Vondra http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2020-06-12 23:28:10 | Reduce timing overhead of EXPLAIN ANALYZE using rdtsc? |
| Previous Message | David Rowley | 2020-06-12 22:58:34 | Re: Speedup usages of pg_*toa() functions |