On 2018-06-06 17:17:52 -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2018-06-07 12:11:37 +1200, David Rowley wrote:
> > On 7 June 2018 at 08:11, Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> > > On 06/06/2018 04:11 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > >> Consider e.g. a scheme where we'd switch from hashed aggregation to
> > >> sorted aggregation due to memory limits, but already have a number of
> > >> transition values in the hash table. Whenever the size of the transition
> > >> values in the hashtable exceeds memory size, we write one of them to the
> > >> tuplesort (with serialized transition value). From then on further input
> > >> rows for that group would only be written to the tuplesort, as the group
> > >> isn't present in the hashtable anymore.
> > >>
> > >
> > > Ah, so you're suggesting that during the second pass we'd deserialize
> > > the transition value and then add the tuples to it, instead of building
> > > a new transition value. Got it.
> >
> > Having to deserialize every time we add a new tuple sounds terrible
> > from a performance point of view.
>
> I didn't mean that we do that, and I don't think David understood it as
> that either. I was talking about the approach where the second pass is a
> sort rather than hash based aggregation. Then we would *not* need to
> deserialize more than exactly once.
s/David/Tomas/, obviously. Sorry, it's been a long day.
Greetings,
Andres Freund