From: | Paul Ramsey <pramsey(at)cleverelephant(dot)ca> |
---|---|
To: | Haribabu Kommi <kommi(dot)haribabu(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Parallel Aggregate |
Date: | 2015-12-21 15:16:19 |
Message-ID: | etPan.567817c3.6b8b4567.14f8e@Butterfly.local |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On December 21, 2015 at 2:33:56 AM, Haribabu Kommi (kommi(dot)haribabu(at)gmail(dot)com) wrote:
Yes the query is producing more groups according to the selectivity.
For example - scan selectivity - 400000, the number of groups - 400
Following is the query:
SELECT tenpoCord,
SUM(yokinZandaka) AS yokinZandakaxGOUKEI,
SUM(kashikoshiZandaka) AS kashikoshiZandakaxGOUKEI,
SUM(kouzasuu) AS kouzasuuxGOUKEI,
SUM(sougouKouzasuu) AS sougouKouzasuuxGOUKEI
FROM public.test01
WHERE tenpoCord <= '001' AND
kamokuCord = '01' AND
kouzaKatujyoutaiCord = '0'
GROUP BY kinkoCord,tenpoCord;
Shouldn’t parallel aggregate come into play regardless of scan selectivity? I know in PostGIS land there’s a lot of stuff like:
SELECT ST_Union(geom) FROM t GROUP BY areacode;
Basically, in the BI case, there’s often no filter at all. Hoping that’s considered a prime case for parallel agg :)
P
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Fabien COELHO | 2015-12-21 15:16:52 | Re: extend pgbench expressions with functions |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2015-12-21 15:11:52 | Re: custom function for converting human readable sizes to bytes |