Re: hashagg slowdown due to spill changes

From: Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: Tomas Vondra <tv(at)fuzzy(dot)cz>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: hashagg slowdown due to spill changes
Date: 2020-06-15 06:09:55
Message-ID: e19a19bf2ec75db916ad85f324cb3596c4d8e196.camel@j-davis.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sun, 2020-06-14 at 11:14 -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> I'm somewhat inclined to think that we should revert 4cad2534da6 and
> then look at how precisely to tackle this in 14.

I'm fine with that.

> It'd probably make sense to request small tlists when the number of
> estimated groups is large, and not otherwise.

That seems like a nice compromise that would be non-invasive, at least
for create_agg_plan().

Regards,
Jeff Davis

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Amit Kapila 2020-06-15 06:20:04 Re: Transactions involving multiple postgres foreign servers, take 2
Previous Message Bharath Rupireddy 2020-06-15 05:34:06 Re: [PATCH] Initial progress reporting for COPY command