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
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 |