Re: PoC: Partial sort - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: PoC: Partial sort
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmoYMPcbSmdZr-khRSPOH3H3H_SDd=9LjOOLk2Hvmo3OvZg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: PoC: Partial sort  (Marti Raudsepp <marti@juffo.org>)
Responses Re: PoC: Partial sort
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 6:58 PM, Marti Raudsepp <marti@juffo.org> wrote:
> I ran some synthetic benchmarks with single-column inner joins between 5
> tables, with indexes on both joined columns, using only EXPLAIN (so
> measuring planning time, not execution) in 9 scenarios to excercise
> different code paths. According to these measurements, the overhead ranges
> between 1.0 and 4.5% depending on the scenario.

Hmm, sounds a little steep.  Why is it so expensive?  I'm probably
missing something here, because I would have thought that planner
support for partial sorts would consist mostly of considering the same
sorts we consider today, but with the costs reduced by the batching.
Changing the cost estimation that way can't be that much more
expensive than what we're already doing, so the overhead should be
minimal.  What the patch is actually doing seems to be something quite
a bit more invasive than that, but I'm not sure what it is exactly, or
why.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: Add CREATE support to event triggers
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: Performance Improvement by reducing WAL for Update Operation