Re: [HACKERS] Partition-wise aggregation/grouping - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Antonin Houska
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Partition-wise aggregation/grouping
Date
Msg-id 4127.1493202482@localhost
Whole thread Raw
In response to [HACKERS] Partition-wise aggregation/grouping  (Jeevan Chalke <jeevan.chalke@enterprisedb.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] Partition-wise aggregation/grouping
List pgsql-hackers
Antonin Houska <ah@cybertec.at> wrote:

> Antonin Houska <ah@cybertec.at> wrote:
> >
> > Jeevan Chalke <jeevan.chalke@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Our work will overlap when we are pushing down the aggregate on partitioned
> > > base relation to its children/partitions.
> > >
> > > I think you should continue working on pushing down aggregate onto the
> > > joins/scans where as I will continue my work on pushing down aggregates to
> > > partitions (joins as well as single table). Once we are done with these task,
> > > then we may need to find a way to integrate them.
> > >
> > > [1]
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CAFjFpRfQ8GrQvzp3jA2wnLqrHmaXna-urjm_UY9BqXj=EaDTSA@mail.gmail.com#CAFjFpRfQ8GrQvzp3jA2wnLqrHmaXna-urjm_UY9BqXj=EaDTSA@mail.gmail.com
> >
> > My patch does also create (partial) aggregation paths below the Append node,
> > but only expects SeqScan as input. Please check if you patch can be based on
> > this or if there's any conflict.
>
> Well, I haven't imposed any explicit restriction on the kind of path to be
> aggregated below the Append path. Maybe the only thing to do is to merge my
> patch with the "partition-wise join" patch (which I haven't checked yet).

Attached is a diff that contains both patches merged. This is just to prove my
assumption, details to be elaborated later. The scripts attached produce the
following plan in my environment:

                   QUERY PLAN
------------------------------------------------
 Parallel Finalize HashAggregate
   Group Key: b_1.j
   ->  Append
         ->  Parallel Partial HashAggregate
               Group Key: b_1.j
               ->  Hash Join
                     Hash Cond: (b_1.j = c_1.k)
                     ->  Seq Scan on b_1
                     ->  Hash
                           ->  Seq Scan on c_1
         ->  Parallel Partial HashAggregate
               Group Key: b_2.j
               ->  Hash Join
                     Hash Cond: (b_2.j = c_2.k)
                     ->  Seq Scan on b_2
                     ->  Hash
                           ->  Seq Scan on c_2


Note that I had no better idea how to enforce the plan than hard-wiring zero
costs of the partial aggregation paths. This simulates the use case of partial
aggregation performed on remote node (postgres_fdw). Other use cases may
exist, but I only wanted to prove the concept in terms of coding so far.

--
Antonin Houska
Cybertec Schönig & Schönig GmbH
Gröhrmühlgasse 26
A-2700 Wiener Neustadt
Web: http://www.postgresql-support.de, http://www.cybertec.at


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Heikki Linnakangas
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] scram and \password
Next
From: Konstantin Knizhnik
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Cached plans and statement generalization