| From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: explain HashAggregate to report bucket and memory stats |
| Date: | 2020-03-13 17:53:17 |
| Message-ID: | eed4d5447629fcaa0360f4b5b66921df39b19b96.camel@j-davis.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, 2020-03-13 at 10:27 -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2020-03-13 10:15:46 -0700, Jeff Davis wrote:
> > Also, is there a reason you report two different memory values
> > (hashtable and tuples)? I don't object, but it seems like a little
> > too
> > much detail.
>
> Seems useful to me - the hashtable is pre-allocated based on
> estimates,
> whereas the tuples are allocated "on demand". So seeing the
> difference
> will allow to investigate the more crucial issue...
Then do we also want to report separately on the by-ref transition
values? That could be useful if you are using ARRAY_AGG and the states
grow larger than you might expect.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2020-03-13 17:57:43 | Re: explain HashAggregate to report bucket and memory stats |
| Previous Message | James Coleman | 2020-03-13 17:50:25 | Re: [PATCH] Incremental sort (was: PoC: Partial sort) |