| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Scott Carey <scott(dot)carey(at)algonomy(dot)com>, David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Significant performance issues with array_agg() + HashAggregate plans on Postgres 17 |
| Date: | 2026-04-03 19:56:22 |
| Message-ID: | 3829071.1775246182@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> writes:
> One idea would be to update parent contexts' memory totals recursively
> each time a subcontext allocates a new block. Block allocations are
> infrequent enough that may be acceptable.
> If we are worried about affecting unrelated cases, we could set an
> "accounting_enabled" flag for the contexts we care about, which would
> be automatically inherited by subcontexts, and then stop recursing up
> when that flag is false.
Yeah, I was speculating about similar ideas. Since mem_allocated
is only changed after a malloc() or free() call, it probably
wouldn't add too much overhead to propagate that up to parent
contexts. I agree with having a flag to prevent the propagation
from going up further than we actually care about, though.
Would it make sense to accumulate those values in a separate field
child_mem_allocated, rather than redefining what mem_allocated
means?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jeff Davis | 2026-04-03 20:01:38 | Re: Significant performance issues with array_agg() + HashAggregate plans on Postgres 17 |
| Previous Message | Jeff Davis | 2026-04-03 19:36:23 | Re: Significant performance issues with array_agg() + HashAggregate plans on Postgres 17 |