public inbox for [email protected]
help / color / mirror / Atom feedFrom: John Naylor <[email protected]>
To: David Rowley <[email protected]>
Cc: pghackers <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Todo: Teach planner to evaluate multiple windows in the optimal order
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2023 17:24:33 +0700
Message-ID: <CAFBsxsHmbMeDb8BJOc3paNQynppeCYJTtp3dKdRbt76vLRgpSw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAApHDvqjp=uX+dkgxanR6_9i9DPtXyo+5WP0zYc+NrgHLxCxGw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<CAApHDvpEYcQ7d-c6Lje26gLi4dXOM3qQ9nrTe1Z241tT8nBiCg@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<CAApHDvp8BpUEo_kQdGHWNPCjcmRWCdiy5p26SoQA4R6rinkaLA@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<CAApHDvp=YnmEQ8Ceu5g4wPL-b5YKmhQ7A3Lya6x=6ga=LLHMFA@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<CAApHDvpigtPVJOJ4EmWOAODtPTccz=L_gdPXDVgG2Z=iSPfNmQ@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<CAApHDvqVjeHg6UgeCvFOa-uCaEFix9C_3YaT2qxsMtjN4oKbNQ@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<CAApHDvra7JeUm+wRpS+XoYXun_9b601s6ujWVG+gOd_AP5cADw@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<CAApHDvpAO5H_L84kn9gCJ_hihOavtmDjimKYyftjWtF69BJ=8Q@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<CAApHDvqh+qOHk4sbvvy=Qr2NjPqAAVYf82oXY0g=Z2hRpC2Vmg@mail.gmail.com>
<CAFBsxsGaVfUrjTghpf=kDBYY=jWx1PN-fuusVe7Vw5s0XqGdGw@mail.gmail.com>
<CAApHDvq1uOkSOXJrrNRzYF1-TBtFEBG+b8ZQ9ytS6po_Y7aKDg@mail.gmail.com>
<CAFBsxsGihhYNHP-nGiy-sxyLJYxOWq_T0QwQhQreDF0wSq+37Q@mail.gmail.com>
<CAFBsxsH56Xo0FteEEnBg4NgTv0eHojhCfFrJs9FkrmimYpaMQQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CAApHDvqjp=uX+dkgxanR6_9i9DPtXyo+5WP0zYc+NrgHLxCxGw@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, Jul 3, 2023 at 5:15 PM David Rowley <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 30 Jun 2023 at 18:45, John Naylor <[email protected]>
wrote:
> I looked over your patch and don't see anything to report aside from
> the unfinished/undecided part around the tiebreak function for
> tuplesort_begin_index_hash().
I went ahead and added a degenerate function, just for consistency -- might
also head off possible alarms from code analysis tools.
> I also ran the benchmark script [1] with the patch from [2] and
> calculated the speedup with [2] with and without your v3 patch. I've
> attached two graphs with the benchmark results. Any value >100%
> indicates that performing the sort for the ORDER BY at the same time
> as the WindowAgg improves performance, whereas anything < 100%
> indicates a regression. The bars in blue show the results without
> your v3 patch and the red bars show the results with your v3 patch.
> Looking at the remaining regressions it does not really feel like
> we've found the culprit for the regressions. Certainly, v3 helps, but
> I just don't think it's to the level we'd need to make the window sort
> changes a good idea.
>
> I'm not sure exactly how best to proceed here. I think the tiebreak
> stuff is worth doing regardless, so maybe that can just go in to
> eliminate that as a factor and we or I can continue to see what else
> is to blame.
Thanks for testing again. Sounds good, I removed a now-invalidated comment,
pgindent'd, and pushed.
--
John Naylor
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
view thread (60+ messages)
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: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Re: Todo: Teach planner to evaluate multiple windows in the optimal order
In-Reply-To: <CAFBsxsHmbMeDb8BJOc3paNQynppeCYJTtp3dKdRbt76vLRgpSw@mail.gmail.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox