Re: Disk-based hash aggregate's cost model - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Jeff Davis
Subject Re: Disk-based hash aggregate's cost model
Date
Msg-id a0e8a1e42d377eba095d01a377bd99c1d7f11828.camel@j-davis.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Disk-based hash aggregate's cost model  (Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: Disk-based hash aggregate's cost model  (Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, 2020-09-01 at 23:19 +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> FWIW any thoughts about the different in temp size compared to
> CP_SMALL_TLIST?

Are you referring to results from a while ago? In this thread I don't
see what you're referring to.

I tried in a simple case on REL_13_STABLE, with and without the
CP_SMALL_TLIST change, and I saw only a tiny difference. Do you have a
current case that shows a larger difference?

The only thing I can think of that might change is the size of the null
bitmap or how fields are aligned.

Regards,
    Jeff Davis





pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: 回复:how to create index concurrently on partitioned table
Next
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: Switch to multi-inserts for pg_depend