From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Hadi Moshayedi <hadi(at)moshayedi(dot)net> |
Cc: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "mark(dot)kirkwood(at)catalyst(dot)net(dot)nz" <mark(dot)kirkwood(at)catalyst(dot)net(dot)nz> |
Subject: | Re: Improving avg performance for numeric |
Date: | 2013-03-19 17:58:09 |
Message-ID: | 8165.1363715889@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
I wrote:
> [ looks at patch... ] Oh, I see what's affecting the plan: you changed
> the aggtranstypes to internal for a bunch of aggregates. That's not
> very good, because right now the planner takes that to mean that the
> aggregate could eat a lot of space. We don't want that to happen for
> these aggregates, I think.
After thinking about that for awhile: if we pursue this type of
optimization, what would probably be appropriate is to add an aggregate
property (stored in pg_aggregate) that allows direct specification of
the size that the planner should assume for the aggregate's transition
value. We were getting away with a hardwired assumption of 8K for
"internal" because the existing aggregates that used that transtype all
had similar properties, but it was always really a band-aid not a proper
solution. A per-aggregate override could be useful in other cases too.
This was looking like 9.4 material already, but adding such a property
would definitely put it over the top of what we could think about
squeezing into 9.3, IMO.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2013-03-19 18:07:53 | Re: Enabling Checksums |
Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2013-03-19 17:47:24 | Re: Enabling Checksums |