public inbox for [email protected]
help / color / mirror / Atom feedFrom: Tender Wang <[email protected]>
To: Richard Guo <[email protected]>
Cc: Paul George <[email protected]>
Cc: Andy Fan <[email protected]>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Cc: Robert Haas <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Eager aggregation, take 3
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2024 11:57:12 +0800
Message-ID: <CAHewXNmYM6DvR_kaxDL0w0fz9BwKbac+TSU3QS10aA3cXHyMmA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAMbWs483a7-8M0pDttG44r-+8Gevn9VG0xNceE3WpkEQxJXPZw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMbWs48jzLrPt1J_00ZcPZXWUQKawQOFE8ROc-ADiYqsqrpBNw@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<CAMbWs49=eAd2W9jCtGhaZPPp+SOC_2rg16RTG74xAht=hkr5JQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CAMbWs49Nc4M3H+eCf1+8w8piDyEECjRb-gK_JMF4VvcyWwGEVQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CAMbWs49E_dR0nobsExsyetpnBpHObLTsQLsEbWKQLkh0omPxNg@mail.gmail.com>
<CAMbWs49B_qUiHvu2EqLHZRpLr3p_+QPBs50n2=L5ibYzniwTzA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAMbWs48KCQtDymnYi4M=Vz+WMzo3fkBxffJsyk6VX6hOXXv+VA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAMbWs49sv_MuOYqqrtmBN_oYf8VSQ2BXDwXaTpJTn_YfwyYdWQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CAMbWs49U8Sddx_fGszPdvA3jp_nheynxaqm5Y4NqMV21VBYAuQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CAMbWs4-LwyOg9ga+NVF7yQbMi0ZsZdN1G_sO2v=YJHV18=19+A@mail.gmail.com>
<CALA8mJquG_zCJXfVwash5LKqHGtZXQmq7RfTSaRDUzGYeW=7Rw@mail.gmail.com>
<CAMbWs4_EjgcBib5+y1LYcGB3EK3Y6R+OOxGKfJo42fDovadk1g@mail.gmail.com>
<CALA8mJqe0anNM8_V6cOeOQnCHUTQggn7iOQNyQr1VaN_xMjz+w@mail.gmail.com>
<CAMbWs48eE-s-jCicC8pSVfXk8Ws-ZvUKnsw8qH-DkVBdYv0eJQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CAMbWs483a7-8M0pDttG44r-+8Gevn9VG0xNceE3WpkEQxJXPZw@mail.gmail.com>
Richard Guo <[email protected]> 于2024年8月21日周三 15:11写道：
> On Fri, Aug 16, 2024 at 4:14 PM Richard Guo <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> > I had a self-review of this patchset and made some refactoring,
> > especially to the function that creates the RelAggInfo structure for a
> > given relation. While there were no major changes, the code should
> > now be simpler.
>
> I found a bug in v10 patchset: when we generate the GROUP BY clauses
> for the partial aggregation that is pushed down to a non-aggregated
> relation, we may produce a clause with a tleSortGroupRef that
> duplicates one already present in the query's groupClause, which would
> cause problems.
>
> Attached is the updated version of the patchset that fixes this bug
> and includes further code refactoring.
>
Rectenly, I do some benchmark tests, mainly on tpch and tpcds.
tpch tests have no plan diff, so I do not continue to test on tpch.
tpcds(10GB) tests have 22 plan diff as below:
4.sql, 5.sql, 8.sql,11.sql,19.sql,23.sql,31.sql,
33.sql,39.sql,45.sql,46.sql,47.sql,53.sql,
56.sql,57.sql,60.sql,63.sql,68.sql,74.sql,77.sql,80.sql,89.sql
I haven't look all of them. I just pick few simple plan test(e.g. 19.sql,
45.sql).
For example, 19.sql, eager agg pushdown doesn't get large gain, but a little
performance regress.
I will continue to do benchmark on this feature.
[1] https://github.com/tenderwg/eager_agg
--
Tender Wang
view thread (30+ messages) latest in thread
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], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Re: Eager aggregation, take 3
In-Reply-To: <CAHewXNmYM6DvR_kaxDL0w0fz9BwKbac+TSU3QS10aA3cXHyMmA@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