On Thu, Apr 09, 2020 at 01:48:55PM +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 07, 2020 at 05:39:01PM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 07, 2020 at 11:20:46AM -0700, Jeff Davis wrote:
> > > The enable_hashagg_disk GUC, if set to true, chooses HashAgg based on
> > > costing. If false, it only generates a HashAgg path if it thinks it will fit
> > > in work_mem, similar to the old behavior (though it wlil now spill to disk if
> > > the planner was wrong about it fitting in work_mem). The current default is
> > > true.
> >
> > Are there any other GUCs that behave like that ? It's confusing to me when I
> > see "Disk Usage: ... kB", despite setting it to "disable", and without the
> > usual disable_cost. I realize that postgres chose the plan on the hypothesis
> > that it would *not* exceed work_mem, and that spilling to disk is considered
> > preferable to ignoring the setting, and that "going back" to planning phase
> > isn't a possibility.
>
> It it really any different from our enable_* GUCs? Even if you do e.g.
> enable_sort=off, we may still do a sort. Same for enable_groupagg etc.
Those show that the GUC was disabled by showing disable_cost. That's what's
different about this one.
Also.. there's no such thing as enable_groupagg? Unless I've been missing out
on something.
> > "This setting determines whether the planner will elect to use a hash plan
> > which it expects will exceed work_mem and spill to disk. During execution,
> > hash nodes which exceed work_mem will spill to disk even if this setting is
> > disabled. To avoid spilling to disk, either increase work_mem (or set
> > enable_hashagg=off)."
> >
> > For sure the release notes should recommend re-calibrating work_mem.
>
> I don't follow. Why would the recalibrating be needed?
Because HashAgg plans which used to run fine (because they weren't prevented
from overflowing work_mem) might now run poorly after spilling to disk (because
of overflowing work_mem).
--
Justin
