| From: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
| Cc: | Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: HashAgg's batching counter starts at 0, but Hash's starts at 1. |
| Date: | 2020-07-28 04:08:34 |
| Message-ID: | CAApHDvr9+jAN2M-BJk8dYoKyvcJMHiF67BANwKmjBHC9pdnU3A@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 28 Jul 2020 at 15:21, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> wrote:
> Separately, I wonder what your opinion is about what should happen for
> the partial sort related EXPLAIN ANALYZE format open item, described
> here:
>
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/20200619040358.GZ17995%40telsasoft.com#b20bd205851a0390220964f7c31b23d1
>
> ISTM that EXPLAIN ANALYZE for incremental sort manages to show the
> same information as the sort case, aggregated across each tuplesort in
> a fairly sensible way.
>
> (No activity over on the incremental sort thread, so I thought I'd ask
> again here, while I was reminded of that issue.)
TBH, I've not really looked at that.
Tom did mention his view on this in [1]. I think that's a pretty good
policy. However, I've not looked at the incremental sort EXPLAIN
output enough to know how it'll best apply there.
David
[1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/2276865.1593102811%40sss.pgh.pa.us
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2020-07-28 04:21:54 | Re: PATCH: logical_work_mem and logical streaming of large in-progress transactions |
| Previous Message | David Rowley | 2020-07-28 04:02:38 | Re: HashAgg's batching counter starts at 0, but Hash's starts at 1. |