Re: Eager aggregation, take 3

From: Richard Guo <guofenglinux(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tender Wang <tndrwang(at)gmail(dot)com>, Paul George <p(dot)a(dot)george19(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andy Fan <zhihuifan1213(at)163(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Eager aggregation, take 3
Date: 2024-08-29 02:45:58
Message-ID: CAMbWs4-Q-CHadH1ub_oAv3sJ_NHt0GUO4nce3LBhpPmp1v6Z_Q@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Aug 28, 2024 at 9:01 PM Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 11:57 PM Tender Wang <tndrwang(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > I haven't look all of them. I just pick few simple plan test(e.g. 19.sql, 45.sql).
> > For example, 19.sql, eager agg pushdown doesn't get large gain, but a little
> > performance regress.
>
> Yeah, this is one of the things I was worried about in my previous
> reply to Richard. It would be worth Richard, or someone, probing into
> exactly why that's happening. My fear is that we just don't have good
> enough estimates to make good decisions, but there might well be
> another explanation.

It's great that we have a query to probe into. Your guess is likely
correct: it may be caused by poor estimates.

Tender, would you please help provide the outputs of

EXPLAIN (COSTS ON, ANALYZE)

on 19.sql with and without eager aggregation?

> > I will continue to do benchmark on this feature.

Thanks again for running the benchmarks.

Thanks
Richard

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2024-08-29 03:03:56 Re: Remove unnecessary check on set-returning functions in values_lists
Previous Message Richard Guo 2024-08-29 02:29:26 Re: Eager aggregation, take 3