Re: [PATCH] Incremental sort (was: PoC: Partial sort)

From: Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: James Coleman <jtc331(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Rafia Sabih <rafia(dot)pghackers(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Shaun Thomas <shaun(dot)thomas(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Andreas Karlsson <andreas(at)proxel(dot)se>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Incremental sort (was: PoC: Partial sort)
Date: 2020-04-05 13:12:27
Message-ID: 20200405131227.zit6a5w3fv5qq6fh@development
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sun, Apr 05, 2020 at 03:01:10PM +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>On Thu, Apr 02, 2020 at 09:40:45PM -0400, James Coleman wrote:
>>On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 8:46 PM James Coleman <jtc331(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>>
>>>On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 8:20 PM Tomas Vondra
>>><tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>> 5) Overall, I think the costing is OK. I'm sure we'll find cases that
>>>> will need improvements, but that's fine. However, we now have
>>>>
>>>> - cost_tuplesort (used to be cost_sort)
>>>> - cost_full_sort
>>>> - cost_incremental_sort
>>>> - cost_sort
>>>>
>>>> I find it a bit confusing that we have cost_sort and cost_full_sort. Why
>>>> don't we just keep using the dummy path in label_sort_with_costsize?
>>>> That seems to be the only external caller outside costsize.c. Then we
>>>> could either make cost_full_sort static or get rid of it entirely.
>>>
>>>This another area of the patch I haven't really modified.
>>
>>See attached for a cleanup of this; it removed cost_fullsort so
>>label_sort_with_costsize is back to how it was.
>>
>>I've directly merged this into the patch series; if you'd like to see
>>the diff I can send that along.
>>
>
>Thanks. Attached is v54 of the patch, with some minor changes. The main
>two changes are in add_partial_path_precheck(), firstly to also consider
>startup_cost, as discussed before. The second change (in 0003) is a bit
>of an experiment to make add_partial_precheck() cheaper by only calling
>compare_pathkeys after checking the costs first (which should be cheaper
>than the function call). add_path_precheck already does it in that order
>anyway.
>

Oh, I forgot to mention a change in add_partial_path - I've removed the
reference/dependency on enable_incrementalsort. It seemed rather ugly,
and the results without it seem fine (I'm benchmarking only the case
with incremental sort enabled anyway). I also plan to look at the other
optimization we bolted on last week, i.e. checking length of pathkeys.
I'll see if that actually makes measurable difference.

regards

--
Tomas Vondra http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tomas Vondra 2020-04-05 14:14:49 Re: Consider low startup cost in add_partial_path
Previous Message Mikael Kjellström 2020-04-05 13:10:15 Re: backup manifests and contemporaneous buildfarm failures