Re: sqlsmith crash incremental sort

From: James Coleman <jtc331(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: sqlsmith crash incremental sort
Date: 2020-04-18 18:23:25
Message-ID: CAAaqYe-SZUZRCYKZBUvrWDv=TTS6p4Xb8wO6cLXDsJhJ2D6K1Q@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 9:26 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > I think we have essentially three options:
> > 1) assuming there's just a single group
> > 2) assuming each row is a separate group
> > 3) something in between
> > If (1) and (2) are worst/best-case scenarios, maybe we should pick
> > something in between. We have DEFAULT_NUM_DISTINCT (200) which
> > essentially says "we don't know what the number of groups is" so maybe
> > we should use that.
>
> I wouldn't recommend picking either the best or worst cases.
>
> Possibly DEFAULT_NUM_DISTINCT is a sane choice, though it's fair to
> wonder if it's quite applicable to the case where we already know
> we've grouped by some columns.

Do you think defining a new default, say,
DEFAULT_NUM_DISTINCT_PRESORTED is preferred then? And choose some
value like "1/2 of the normal DEFAULT_NUM_DISTINCT groups" or some
such?

James

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2020-04-18 20:17:15 Re: fixing old_snapshot_threshold's time->xid mapping
Previous Message Magnus Hagander 2020-04-18 16:33:08 Re: relocating the server's backup manifest code