From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
cc: David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com>,
        Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>,
        Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>,
        Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>,
        PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Parallel Aggregates for string_agg and array_agg
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>
Comments: In-reply-to Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
	message dated "Tue, 01 May 2018 16:16:02 -0400"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <15682.1525208375.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Tue, 01 May 2018 16:59:35 -0400
Message-ID: <15683.1525208375@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

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