Re: WIP Patch for GROUPING SETS phase 1

On 08/21/2014 01:28 PM, Andrew Gierth wrote:
>
> A progress update:
>
> Atri> We envisage that handling of arbitrary grouping sets will be
> Atri> best done by having the planner generating an Append of
> Atri> multiple aggregation paths, presumably with some way of moving
> Atri> the original input path to a CTE. We have not really explored
> Atri> yet how hard this will be; suggestions are welcome.
>
> This idea was abandoned.
>
> Instead, we have implemented full support for arbitrary grouping sets
> by means of a chaining system:
>
> explain (verbose, costs off) select four, ten, hundred, count(*) from onek group by cube(four,ten,hundred);
>
> QUERY PLAN
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> GroupAggregate
> Output: four, ten, hundred, count(*)
> Grouping Sets: (onek.hundred, onek.four, onek.ten), (onek.hundred, onek.four), (onek.hundred), ()
> -> Sort
> Output: four, ten, hundred
> Sort Key: onek.hundred, onek.four, onek.ten
> -> ChainAggregate
> Output: four, ten, hundred
> Grouping Sets: (onek.ten, onek.hundred), (onek.ten)
> -> Sort
> Output: four, ten, hundred
> Sort Key: onek.ten, onek.hundred
> -> ChainAggregate
> Output: four, ten, hundred
> Grouping Sets: (onek.four, onek.ten), (onek.four)
> -> Sort
> Output: four, ten, hundred
> Sort Key: onek.four, onek.ten
> -> Seq Scan on public.onek
> Output: four, ten, hundred
> (20 rows)

Uh, that's ugly. The EXPLAIN out I mean; as an implementation detail
chaining the nodes might be reasonable. But the above gets unreadable if
you have more than a few grouping sets.

> The ChainAggregate nodes use a tuplestore to communicate with the
> GroupAggregate node at the top of the chain; they pass through input
> tuples unchanged, and write aggregated result rows to the tuplestore,
> which the top node then returns once it has finished its own result.

Hmm, so there's a "magic link" between the GroupAggregate at the top and
all the ChainAggregates, via the tuplestore. That may be fine, we have
special rules in passing information between bitmap scan nodes too.

But rather than chain multiple ChainAggregate nodes, how about just
doing all the work in the top GroupAggregate node?

> Atri> At this point we are more interested in design review rather
> Atri> than necessarily committing this patch in its current state.
>
> This no longer applies; we expect to post within a day or two an
> updated patch with full functionality.

Ok, cool

- Heikki