Re: PoC: Partial sort

From: Marti Raudsepp <marti(at)juffo(dot)org>
To: Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Andreas Karlsson <andreas(at)proxel(dot)se>, David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>
Subject: Re: PoC: Partial sort
Date: 2014-01-28 03:41:32
Message-ID: CABRT9RC-erXdcuoL7=0uvWGp+jq1nuTWDpGS8QBLK8JrOHw8=A@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 9:26 PM, Alexander Korotkov
<aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> For now, I have attempt to fix extra columns in mergejoin problem. It would
> be nice if you test it.

Yes, it solves the test cases I was trying with, thanks.

> 1) With enable_partialsort = off all mergejoin logic should behave as
> without partial sort patch.
> 2) With partial sort patch get_cheapest_fractional_path_for_pathkeys
> function is much more expensive to execute. With enable_partialsort = off it
> should be as cheap as without partial sort patch.

When it comes to planning time, I really don't think you should
bother. The planner enable_* settings are meant for troubleshooting,
debugging and learning about the planner. You should not expect people
to disable them in a production setting. It's not worth complicating
the code for that rare case.

This is stated in the documentation
(http://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/runtime-config-query.html)
and repeatedly on the mailing lists.

But some benchmarks of planning performance are certainly warranted.

Regards,
Marti

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Dunstan 2014-01-28 03:43:01 Re: jsonb and nested hstore
Previous Message Robert Haas 2014-01-28 03:39:25 Re: Performance Improvement by reducing WAL for Update Operation