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

From Marti Raudsepp
Subject Re: PoC: Partial sort
Date
Msg-id CABRT9RBxkTGv2QD8rAvynqVq4zhWQSLhE07iuDCeyVLUzmGJSA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: PoC: Partial sort  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: PoC: Partial sort  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Re: PoC: Partial sort  (Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 5:31 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

I guess it's because the patch undoes some optimizations in the
mergejoin planner wrt caching merge clauses and adds a whole lot of
code to find_mergeclauses_for_pathkeys. In other code paths the
overhead does seem to be negligible.

Notice the removal of:
/* Select the right mergeclauses, if we didn't already */
/** Avoid rebuilding clause list if we already made one;* saves memory in big join trees...*/

Regards,
Marti



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Gavin Flower
Date:
Subject: Re: Performance Improvement by reducing WAL for Update Operation
Next
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: Misaligned BufferDescriptors causing major performance problems on AMD