From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Kouhei Kaigai <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com> |
Cc: | Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Our trial to TPC-DS but optimizer made unreasonable plan |
Date: | 2015-08-18 15:12:36 |
Message-ID: | CA+Tgmobe7UztQNTdFED8_XNOg7PmaSG578z2PQMsqXq_hi+wBQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 9:40 AM, Kouhei Kaigai <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com> wrote:
> I think SortSupport logic provides a reasonable way to solve this
> kind of problem. For example, btint4sortsupport() informs a function
> pointer of the fast version of comparator (btint4fastcmp) which takes
> two Datum argument without indirect memory reference.
> This mechanism will also make sense for HashAggregate logic, to reduce
> the cost of function invocations.
>
> Please comment on the idea I noticed here.
It's possible that this can work, but it might be a good idea to run
'perf' on this query and find out where the CPU time is actually
going. That might give you a clearer picture of why the HashAggregate
is slow.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2015-08-18 15:14:26 | Re: Configure with thread sanitizer fails the thread test |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2015-08-18 15:05:47 | Re: [PROPOSAL] VACUUM Progress Checker. |