Re: Improving executor performance

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Improving executor performance
Date: 2016-06-27 21:40:53
Message-ID: 20160627214053.GB6301@momjian.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 05:25:27PM -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 4:29 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> > As a motivation, here's a somewhat juicy example of the benefits that
> > can be gained (disabled parallelism, results vary too much):
> > SELECT l_linestatus, SUM(l_quantity) FROM lineitem GROUP BY 1 ORDER BY 2 DESC LIMIT 10 ;
> > non-optimized: 9075.835 ms
> > optimized: 5194.024 ms
> >
> > and that's far from doing all the possible work for that query;
> > especially the batching is far from optimal.
>
> That's pretty great. Let me first just say that I think that your
> broadly have the right idea here, and that it will likely be a big
> area to work on in the years ahead. This may become a big, general
> area with many sub-projects, kind of like parallelism. Also, I think
> it's very much complementary to parallelism.

Agreed. I did put out a blog entry about this in April that has links
to some external projects trying to address this issue:

http://momjian.us/main/blogs/pgblog/2016.html#April_1_2016

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Ancient Roman grave inscription +

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2016-06-27 21:44:42 Re: fixing consider_parallel for upper planner rels
Previous Message Robert Haas 2016-06-27 21:37:13 Re: parallel workers and client encoding