Re: Parallel Aggregate

On Thu, Dec 24, 2015 at 5:12 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 6:38 PM, David Rowley
> <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> On 22 December 2015 at 04:16, Paul Ramsey <pramsey(at)cleverelephant(dot)ca> wrote:
>>>
>>> Shouldn’t parallel aggregate come into play regardless of scan
>>> selectivity?
>>
>> I'd say that the costing should take into account the estimated number of
>> groups.
>>
>> The more tuples that make it into each group, the more attractive parallel
>> grouping should seem. In the extreme case if there's 1 tuple per group, then
>> it's not going to be of much use to use parallel agg, this would be similar
>> to a scan with 100% selectivity. So perhaps the costings for it can be
>> modeled around a the parallel scan costing, but using the estimated groups
>> instead of the estimated tuples.
>
> Generally, the way that parallel costing is supposed to work (with the
> parallel join patch, anyway) is that you've got the same nodes costed
> the same way you would otherwise, but the row counts are lower because
> you're only processing 1/Nth of the rows. That's probably not exactly
> the whole story here, but it's something to think about.

Here I attached update parallel aggregate patch on top of recent commits
of combine aggregate and parallel join patch. It still lacks of cost comparison
code to compare both parallel and normal aggregates.

Regards,
Hari Babu
Fujitsu Australia