Re: tweaking NTUP_PER_BUCKET

From: Tomas Vondra <tv(at)fuzzy(dot)cz>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: tweaking NTUP_PER_BUCKET
Date: 2014-07-20 16:17:14
Message-ID: 53CBEB8A.207@fuzzy.cz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 19.7.2014 20:24, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> On 13.7.2014 21:32, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>> The current patch only implemnents this for tuples in the main
>> hash table, not for skew buckets. I plan to do that, but it will
>> require separate chunks for each skew bucket (so we can remove it
>> without messing with all of them). The chunks for skew buckets
>> should be smaller (I'm thinking about ~4kB), because there'll be
>> more of them, but OTOH those buckets are for frequent values so the
>> chunks should not remain empty.
>
> I've looked into extending the dense allocation to the skew buckets,
> and I think we shouldn't do that. I got about 50% of the changes and
> then just threw it out because it turned out quite pointless.
>
> The amount of memory for skew buckets is limited to 2% of work mem,
> so even with 100% overhead it'll use ~4% of work mem. So there's
> pretty much nothing to gain here. So the additional complexity
> introduced by the dense allocation seems pretty pointless.
>
> I'm not entirely happy with the code allocating some memory densely
> and some using traditional palloc, but it certainly seems cleaner
> than the code I had.
>
> So I think the patch is mostly OK as is.

Attached is v4 of the patch, mostly with minor improvements and cleanups
(removed MemoryContextStats, code related to skew buckets).

regards
Tomas

Attachment Content-Type Size
hashjoin-alloc-v4.patch text/x-diff 9.1 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tomas Vondra 2014-07-20 16:29:34 Re: bad estimation together with large work_mem generates terrible slow hash joins
Previous Message Fabien COELHO 2014-07-20 16:12:44 Re: pg_stat_statements cluttered with "DEALLOCATE dbdpg_p*"