On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 06:42:50PM -0700, Melanie Plageman wrote:
>On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 5:40 PM Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 2020-05-26 at 21:15 +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>> >
>> > As for the tlist fix, I think that's mostly ready too - the one thing
>> > we
>> > should do is probably only doing it for AGG_HASHED. For AGG_SORTED
>> > it's
>> > not really necessary.
>>
>> Melanie previously posted a patch to avoid spilling unneeded columns,
>> but it introduced more code:
>>
>>
>>
>> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAAKRu_aefEsv+UkQWqu+ioEnoiL2LJu9Diuh9BR8MbyXuZ0j4A@mail.gmail.com
>>
>> and it seems that Heikki also looked at it. Perhaps we should get an
>> acknowledgement from one of them that your one-line change is the right
>> approach?
>>
>>
>I spent some time looking at it today, and, it turns out I was wrong.
>
>I thought that there was a case I had found where CP_SMALL_TLIST did not
>eliminate as many columns as could be eliminated for the purposes of
>spilling, but, that turned out not to be the case.
>
>I changed CP_LABEL_TLIST to CP_SMALL_TLIST in
>create_groupingsets_plan(), create_agg_plan(), etc and tried a bunch of
>different queries and this 2-3 line change worked for all the cases I
>tried. Is that where you made the change?
I've only made the change in create_agg_plan, because that's what was in
the query plan I was investigating. You may be right that the same fix
is needed in additional places, though.
>And then are you proposing to set it based on the aggstrategy to either
>CP_LABEL_TLIST or CP_SMALL_TLIST here?
>
Yes, something like that. The patch I shared on on 5/21 just changed
that, but I'm wondering if that could add overhead for sorted
aggregation, which already does the projection thanks to the sort.
regards
--
Tomas Vondra http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
