pg.ddx.io  pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org mailing list archive  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
Cc: Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Parallel Aggregates for string_agg and array_agg
Date: Tue, 01 May 2018 16:59:35 -0400
Message-ID: <15683.1525208375@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+TgmoZL6-J-_EGWLKxFWjEu5_advC-59C1LnFOJQRgH+E=Q=g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKJS1f8cB3cc5AK=wPvByhU_jKkgd81iRt2kE6cru8uxx2HCuA@mail.gmail.com>
	<c302afa6-6415-27a5-336a-e1d4332fab09@2ndquadrant.com>
	<CAKJS1f9xEZdTaBbBEKY+TCKEoSZYaH1oSAtsEJHSYDJCCNnQPQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<24abe018-b3c6-2117-b5b9-39e660db00bd@2ndquadrant.com>
	<CAKJS1f8LV7AT=AAhdYGKtGrGkSkEgO6C_SW2Ztz1sR3encisqw@mail.gmail.com>
	<1b6ee15c-c218-761e-0120-c1ed438e2db2@2ndquadrant.com>
	<657be73a-a21d-0ae1-5c62-870afbdfddd4@2ndquadrant.com>
	<CAKJS1f-bKAD+s-CJetRQPjmrR-gF-kfvwfzhQm-A0PA-nsr1xw@mail.gmail.com>
	<20180326022647.GL24540@tamriel.snowman.net>
	<CAKJS1f-axkksX3XzduLJuTL=o8CSwf1NaQYO6=iHSXR_B3pCKQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20180326132009.GN24540@tamriel.snowman.net>
	<CAKJS1f8JVpUUkYP2c+RyVRdpS1dnjB_DA5fbcDSL3qfMRqc81Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<6538.1522096067@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<CA+TgmoZL6-J-_EGWLKxFWjEu5_advC-59C1LnFOJQRgH+E=Q=g@mail.gmail.com>

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 4:27 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> I fear that what will happen, if we commit this, is that something like
>> 0.01% of the users of array_agg and string_agg will be pleased, another
>> maybe 20% will be unaffected because they wrote ORDER BY which prevents
>> parallel aggregation, and the remaining 80% will scream because we broke
>> their queries.  Telling them they should've written ORDER BY isn't going
>> to cut it, IMO, when the benefit of that breakage will accrue only to some
>> very tiny fraction of use-cases.

> I think your estimated percentages here are wildly inaccurate.

My estimate for the number of people positively impacted could be off
by a factor of a thousand, and it still wouldn't change the conclusion
that this will hurt more people than it helps.

I see that I'm in the minority on this, so I'm prepared to accept defeat,
but I stand by that conclusion.

			regards, tom lane




view thread (77+ messages)  latest in thread

Message-ID: <15683.1525208375@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Permalink:  ../15683.1525208375@sss.pgh.pa.us/
Also on:    postgresql.org/message-id/15683.1525208375@sss.pgh.pa.us

 · 

reply
Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
  reply via email

  To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
  Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, robertmhaas@gmail.com, david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com, sfrost@snowman.net, tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com, andres@anarazel.de
  Subject: Re: Parallel Aggregates for string_agg and array_agg
  In-Reply-To: <15683.1525208375@sss.pgh.pa.us>

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox