On 06/07/2018 02:18 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> 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.
>
Solution is simple: drink more coffee. ;-)
regards
--
Tomas Vondra http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services