Re: [HACKERS] Partition-wise aggregation/grouping

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Jeevan Chalke
Тема Re: [HACKERS] Partition-wise aggregation/grouping
Дата
Msg-id CAM2+6=X_+U-ryfV-F-ShPwQwuU_dq2cSmUzWuBN5tjPmgXf4wg@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: [HACKERS] Partition-wise aggregation/grouping  (Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh.bapat@enterprisedb.com>)
Ответы Re: [HACKERS] Partition-wise aggregation/grouping  (Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh.bapat@enterprisedb.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers
Thanks Ashutosh for reviewing.

Attached new patch-set with following changes:

1. Removed earlier 0007 and 0008 patches which were PoC for supporting
partial aggregation over fdw. I removed them as it will be a different
issue altogether and hence I will tackle them separately once this is
done.

This patch-set now includes support for parallel plans within partitions.

Notes:
HEAD: 59597e6
Partition-wise Join Version: 34

(First six patches 0001 - 0006, remains the same functionality-wise)
0007 - Refactors partial grouping paths creation into the separate function.
0008 - Enables parallelism within the partition-wise aggregation.

This patch also includes a fix for the crash reported by Rajkumar.
While forcibly applying scan/join target to all the Paths for the scan/join
rel, earlier I was using apply_projection_to_path() which modifies the path
in-place which causing this crash as the path finally chosen has been
updated by partition-wise agg path creation. Now I have used
create_projection_path() like we do in partial aggregation paths.

Also, fixed issues reported by Ashutosh.

On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 6:16 PM, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh.bapat@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
Hi Jeevan,
I have started reviewing these patches.

0001 looks fine. There might be some changes that will be needed, but
those will be clear when I review the patch that uses this
refactoring.

0002
+ *
+ * If targetlist is provided, we use it else use targetlist from the root.
  */
 static double
 get_number_of_groups(PlannerInfo *root,
                     double path_rows,
-                    grouping_sets_data *gd)
+                    grouping_sets_data *gd,
+                    List *tlist)
 {
    Query      *parse = root->parse;
    double      dNumGroups;
+   List       *targetList = (tlist == NIL) ? parse->targetList : tlist;

May be we should just pass targetlist always. Instead of passing NIL,
pass parse->targetList directly. That would save us one conditional
assignment. May be passing NIL is required for the patches that use
this refactoring, but that's not clear as is in this patch.

Done in attached patch-set.
 

0003
In the documenation of enable_partition_wise_aggregate, we should
probably explain why the default is off or like partition_wise_join
GUC, explain the consequences of turning it off.

I have updated this. Please have a look.
 
I doubt if we could
accept something like partition_wise_agg_cost_factor looks. But we can
discuss this at a later stage. Mean time it may be worthwhile to fix
the reason why we would require this GUC. If the regular aggregation
has cost lesser than partition-wise aggregation in most of the cases,
then probably we need to fix the cost model.

Yep. I will have a look mean-while.
 

I will continue reviewing rest of the patches.


Thanks
--
Jeevan Chalke
Technical Architect, Product Development
EnterpriseDB Corporation
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Вложения

В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Alvaro Herrera
Дата:
Сообщение: [HACKERS] ALTER enums (was Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: doc: first draft ofPostgres 10 release notes)
Следующее
От: Stas Kelvich
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] Transactions involving multiple postgres foreignservers