Postgres Pro
Downloads
Home   >   mailing lists

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

From Jeevan Chalke
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Partition-wise aggregation/grouping
Date
Msg-id CAM2+6=UAMJybYwVi36+NkkduhpJK5rsf40JeGiXxx8R3YdXjWQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Partition-wise aggregation/grouping  (Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] Partition-wise aggregation/grouping
Re: [HACKERS] Partition-wise aggregation/grouping
List pgsql-hackers
Tree view
Hi,

Attached new patch-set here. Changes include:

1. Added separate patch for costing Append node as discussed up-front in the
patch-set.
2. Since we now cost Append node, we don't need partition_wise_agg_cost_factor
GUC. So removed that. The remaining patch hence merged into main implementation
patch.
3. Updated rows in test-cases so that we will get partition-wise plans.

Thanks


On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 9:53 AM, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 10:44 PM, Jeevan Chalke
<jeevan.chalke@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>

> I didn't get what you mean by regression here. Can you please explain?
>
> I see that PWA plan is selected over regular plan when enabled on the basis
> of costing.
> Regular planning need a Result node due to which costing increases where as
> PWA don't need that and thus wins.

Sorry for not clearly explaining,  I meant that with normal plan
execution time is 263.678 ms whereas with PWA its 339.929 ms.

I only set enable_partition_wise_agg=on and it switched to PWA and
execution time increased by 30%.
I understand that the this is the worst case for PWA where
FinalizeAggregate is getting all the tuple.

--
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com



--
Jeevan Chalke
Technical Architect, Product Development
EnterpriseDB Corporation
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Etsuro Fujita
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Add support for tuple routing to foreign partitions
Next
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] inconsistency in process names - bgworker: logicalreplication launcher