From: | Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
---|---|
To: | David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net> |
Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Mithun Cy <mithun(dot)cy(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Incremental sort |
Date: | 2017-03-28 21:17:02 |
Message-ID: | CAPpHfdsGTgE69okyyXLN2Sq7FFosPtgzxDspA271rh=+8f7AZg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 5:27 PM, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net> wrote:
> Hi Alexander,
>
> On 3/20/17 10:19 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>
>> On 03/20/2017 11:33 AM, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
>>
>>> Please, find rebased patch in the attachment.
>>>
>>
>> I had a quick look at this.
>>
>
> <...>
>
> According to 'perf', 85% of the CPU time is spent in ExecCopySlot(). To
>> alleviate that, it might be worthwhile to add a special case for when
>> the group contains exactly one group, and not put the tuple to the
>> tuplesort in that case. Or if we cannot ensure that the Incremental Sort
>> is actually faster, the cost model should probably be smarter, to avoid
>> picking an incremental sort when it's not a win.
>>
>
> This thread has been idle for over a week. Please respond with a new
> patch by 2017-03-30 00:00 AoE (UTC-12) or this submission will be marked
> "Returned with Feedback".
Thank you for reminder!
------
Alexander Korotkov
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2017-03-28 21:26:19 | Re: Removing binaries |
Previous Message | Mark Dilger | 2017-03-28 20:36:44 | Re: Monitoring roles patch |