Re: [PATCH] Incremental sort (was: PoC: Partial sort)
Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>
Attachments
On Thu, Apr 02, 2020 at 09:40:45PM -0400, James Coleman wrote: >On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 8:46 PM James Coleman <jtc331@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 8:20 PM Tomas Vondra >> <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> > ... >> > 5) Overall, I think the costing is OK. I'm sure we'll find cases that >> > will need improvements, but that's fine. However, we now have >> > >> > - cost_tuplesort (used to be cost_sort) >> > - cost_full_sort >> > - cost_incremental_sort >> > - cost_sort >> > >> > I find it a bit confusing that we have cost_sort and cost_full_sort. Why >> > don't we just keep using the dummy path in label_sort_with_costsize? >> > That seems to be the only external caller outside costsize.c. Then we >> > could either make cost_full_sort static or get rid of it entirely. >> >> This another area of the patch I haven't really modified. > >See attached for a cleanup of this; it removed cost_fullsort so >label_sort_with_costsize is back to how it was. > >I've directly merged this into the patch series; if you'd like to see >the diff I can send that along. > Thanks. Attached is v54 of the patch, with some minor changes. The main two changes are in add_partial_path_precheck(), firstly to also consider startup_cost, as discussed before. The second change (in 0003) is a bit of an experiment to make add_partial_precheck() cheaper by only calling compare_pathkeys after checking the costs first (which should be cheaper than the function call). add_path_precheck already does it in that order anyway. I noticed is that compare_path_costs_fuzzily and add_path_precheck both check consider_startup/consider_param_startup to decide whether to look at startup_cost. add_partial_path_precheck probably should od that too. Right now I'm running a battery of benchmarks to see if/how this affects planner performance. Initially the results were rather noisy, but after pinning the processes to processes (using taskset) and fixing frequency (using cpupower) it's much better. The intermediate results seem pretty fine (the results are withing 0.5% of the master, in both directions). I'll share the final results. Overall, I think this is pretty close to committable, and I'm planning to get it committed on Monday unless someone objects. regards -- Tomas Vondra http://www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
Commits
-
Further adjustments to Hashagg EXPLAIN ANALYZE output
- 40efbf8706cd 14.0 cited
-
Rework EXPLAIN format for incremental sort
- 6a918c3ac8a6 13.0 landed
-
Fix typos and improve incremental sort comments
- 1a40d37a9faf 13.0 landed
-
Stabilize incremental_sort tests
- cea09246e578 13.0 landed
-
Minor improvements in Incremental Sort explain
- d22782a5392f 13.0 landed
-
Consider Incremental Sort paths at additional places
- ba3e76cc571e 13.0 landed
-
Fix representation of SORT_TYPE_STILL_IN_PROGRESS.
- c7654f6a3779 13.0 landed
-
Fix failures in incremental_sort due to number of workers
- 23ba3b5ee278 13.0 landed
-
Fix show_incremental_sort_info with force_parallel_mode
- 7d6d82a52493 13.0 landed
-
Implement Incremental Sort
- d2d8a229bc58 13.0 landed
-
Fix handling of "Subplans Removed" field in EXPLAIN output.
- 7d91b604d9b5 13.0 cited
-
Fix EXPLAIN (SETTINGS) to follow policy about when to print empty fields.
- 3ec20c7091e9 13.0 cited
-
Ensure plpgsql result tuples have the right composite type marking.
- 5683b34956b4 13.0 cited
-
Propagate sort instrumentation from workers back to leader.
- bf11e7ee2e36 11.0 cited
-
Make new regression test case parallel-safe, and improve its output.
- 1177ab1dabf7 11.0 cited
-
Push limit through subqueries to underlying sort, where possible.
- 1f6d515a67ec 11.0 cited
-
Fix inappropriate printing of never-measured times in EXPLAIN.
- 4b234fd8bf21 9.6.0 cited
-
Fix some infelicities in EXPLAIN output for parallel query plans.
- 8ebb69f85445 9.6.0 cited