Re: Yet another vectorized engine

From: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Konstantin Knizhnik <k(dot)knizhnik(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>
Cc: Hubert Zhang <hzhang(at)pivotal(dot)io>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Gang Xiong <gxiong(at)pivotal(dot)io>, Asim R P <apraveen(at)pivotal(dot)io>, Ning Yu <nyu(at)pivotal(dot)io>
Subject: Re: Yet another vectorized engine
Date: 2020-02-10 17:32:30
Message-ID: CAFj8pRC6YcoLxG+RWqyTvctiUxK=gKaVeEth9g3BxiTWu7T=BA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

po 10. 2. 2020 v 18:20 odesílatel Konstantin Knizhnik <
k(dot)knizhnik(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> napsal:

> I have done some performance comparisons.
> First of all I failed to run vectorized version of Q1 with master branch
> of your repository and
> PG9_6_STABLE branch of Postgres:
>
> NOTICE: query can't be vectorized
> DETAIL: Non plain agg is not supported
>
> I have to switch to pg96 branch.
>
> Results (seconds) of Q1 execution are the following:
>
> max_parallel_workers_per_gather
> PG9_6, enable_vectorize_engine=off
> PG9_6, enable_vectorize_engine=on
> master (jit=on)
> 0
> 36
> 20
> 10
> 4
> 10
> -
> 5
>
>
> I failed to run parallel version of Q1 with enable_vectorize_engine=on
> because of the same error: "Non plain agg is not supported"
>
>
> So looks like PG-13 provides significant advantages in OLAP queries
> comparing with 9.6!
> Definitely it doesn't mean that vectorized executor is not needed for new
> version of Postgres.
> Once been ported, I expect that it should provide comparable improvement
> of performance.
>
> But in any case I think that vectorized executor makes sense only been
> combine with columnar store.
>

+1

Pavel

>
>
> --
> Konstantin Knizhnik
> Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
> The Russian Postgres Company
>
>

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jonathan S. Katz 2020-02-10 17:37:44 Re: 2020-02-13 Press Release Draft
Previous Message Tom Lane 2020-02-10 17:27:32 Re: [PATCH] Erase the distinctClause if the result is unique by definition