From: Mark Mielke <mark@mark.mielke.cc>
To: PFC <lists@peufeu.com>
Cc: Francisco Reyes <lists@stringsutils.com>
Cc: Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com>
Cc: Pgsql performance <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Group by more efficient than distinct?
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 19:50:22 -0400
Message-ID: <480D283E.1060602@mark.mielke.cc> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <op.t9zif2yocigqcu@apollo13.peufeu.com>
References: <cone.1208490368.136870.53107.1000@zoraida.natserv.net>
<87ve2f7bel.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com>
<op.t9sycqo6cigqcu@apollo13.peufeu.com>
<cone.1208704536.428347.85914.1000@zoraida.natserv.net>
<op.t9zif2yocigqcu@apollo13.peufeu.com>
PFC wrote:
> Actually, the memory used by the hash depends on the number of
> distinct values, not the number of rows which are processed...
> Consider :
>
> SELECT a GROUP BY a
> SELECT a,count(*) GROUP BY a
>
> In both cases the hash only holds discinct values. So if you have
> 1 million rows to process but only 10 distinct values of "a", the hash
> will only contain those 10 values (and the counts), so it will be very
> small and fast, it will absorb a huge seq scan without problem. If
> however, you have (say) 100 million distinct values for a, using a
> hash would be a bad idea. As usual, divide the size of your RAM by the
> number of concurrent connections or something.
> Note that "a" could be a column, several columns, anything, the
> size of the hash will be proportional to the number of distinct
> values, ie. the number of rows returned by the query, not the number
> of rows processed (read) by the query. Same with hash joins etc,
> that's why when you join a very small table to a large one Postgres
> likes to use seq scan + hash join on the small table.
This surprises me - hash values are lossy, so it must still need to
confirm against the real list of values, which at a minimum should
require references to the rows to check against?
Is PostgreSQL doing something beyond my imagination? :-)
Cheers,
mark
--
Mark Mielke <mark@mielke.cc>
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-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: mark@mark.mielke.cc, lists@peufeu.com, lists@stringsutils.com, stark@enterprisedb.com
Subject: Re: Group by more efficient than distinct?
In-Reply-To: <480D283E.1060602@mark.mielke.cc>
* 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