Re: "could not find pathkey item to sort" for TPC-DS queries 94-96

From: Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, James Coleman <jtc331(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Luc Vlaming <luc(at)swarm64(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: "could not find pathkey item to sort" for TPC-DS queries 94-96
Date: 2021-04-15 20:18:34
Message-ID: d0097e39-b4fb-effd-5701-dcbe4f2353df@enterprisedb.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 4/15/21 2:21 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 8:20 PM James Coleman <jtc331(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>> Hmm, could be. Although, the stack trace at issue doesn't seem to show
>>> a call to create_incrementalsort_plan().
>>
>> The changes to gather merge path generation made it possible to use
>> those paths in more cases for both incremental sort and regular sort,
>> so by "incremental sort" I read Tomas as saying "the patches that
>> brought in incremental sort" not specifically "incremental sort
>> itself".
>
> I agree. That's why I said "hmm, could be" even though the plan
> doesn't involve one.
>

Yeah, that's what I meant. The difference to pre-13 behavior is that we
now call generate_useful_gather_paths, which also considers adding extra
sort (unlike plain generate_gather_paths).

So now we can end up with "Gather Merge -> Sort" paths that would not be
considered before.

regards

--
Tomas Vondra
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2021-04-15 21:29:01 Re: SQL-standard function body
Previous Message Justin Pryzby 2021-04-15 19:24:50 Re: ATTACH PARTITION locking documentation for DEFAULT partitions