Re: Trouble with hashagg spill I/O pattern and costing
Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>
From: Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>, Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman@gmail.com>, Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>
Date: 2020-06-05T23:17:26Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Jun 05, 2020 at 06:51:34PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote: >On 2020-Jun-06, Tomas Vondra wrote: > >> On Fri, Jun 05, 2020 at 05:19:43PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote: >> >> > Is this patch the only thing missing before this open item can be >> > considered closed? >> >> I've already pushed this as 4cad2534da6d17067d98cf04be2dfc1bda8f2cd0, >> sorry for not mentioning it in this thread explicitly. > >That's great to know, thanks. The other bit necessary to answer my >question is whether do we need to do anything else in this area -- if >no, then we can mark the open item as closed: >https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PostgreSQL_13_Open_Items#Open_Issues > Hmmm, good question. There was some discussion about maybe tweaking the costing model to make it a bit more pessimistic (assuming more random I/O or something like that), but I'm not sure it's still needed. Increasing random_page_cost for the temp tablespace did the trick for me. So I'd say we can mark it as closed ... regards -- Tomas Vondra http://www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
Commits
-
Use CP_SMALL_TLIST for hash aggregate
- 4cad2534da6d 13.0 landed
-
Avoid fragmentation of logical tapes when writing concurrently.
- 896ddf9b3cd7 13.0 landed