Re: Default setting for enable_hashagg_disk - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Jeff Davis
Subject Re: Default setting for enable_hashagg_disk
Date
Msg-id a856635f9284bc36f7a77d02f47bbb6aaf7b59b3.camel@j-davis.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Default setting for enable_hashagg_disk  (Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>)
Responses Re: Default setting for enable_hashagg_disk  (Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Sat, 2020-07-25 at 13:27 -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> It's not clear to me that overpartitioning is a real problem in
> > this
> > case -- but I think the fact that it's causing confusion is enough
> > reason to see if we can fix it.
> 
> I'm not sure about that either.
> 
> FWIW I notice that when I reduce work_mem a little further (to 3MB)
> with the same query, the number of partitions is still 128, while the
> number of run time batches is 16,512 (an increase from 11,456 from
> 6MB
> work_mem). I notice that 16512/128 is 129, which hints at the nature
> of what's going on with the recursion. I guess it would be ideal if
> the growth in batches was more gradual as I subtract memory.

I wrote a quick patch to use HyperLogLog to estimate the number of
groups contained in a spill file. It seems to reduce the
overpartitioning effect, and is a more principled approach than what I
was doing before.

It does seem to hurt the runtime slightly when spilling to disk in some
cases. I haven't narrowed down whether this is because we end up
recursing multiple times, or if it's just more efficient to
overpartition, or if the cost of doing the HLL itself is significant.

Regards,
    Jeff Davis


Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Peter Geoghegan
Date:
Subject: Re: hashagg slowdown due to spill changes
Next
From: Tomas Vondra
Date:
Subject: Re: Default setting for enable_hashagg_disk