Re: POC: GROUP BY optimization
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov@gmail.com>
Cc: Andrei Lepikhov <a.lepikhov@postgrespro.ru>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>, Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com>, Teodor Sigaev <teodor@sigaev.ru>, David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>, "a.rybakina" <a.rybakina@postgrespro.ru>, Белялов Дамир Наилевич <d.belyalov@postgrespro.ru>
Date: 2023-12-27T04:27:39Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Commits
Same data as JSON:
GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits
the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources.
API reference →
-
Restore preprocess_groupclause()
- 505c008ca37c 17.0 landed
-
Rename PathKeyInfo to GroupByOrdering
- 0c1af2c35c7b 17.0 landed
-
Add invariants check to get_useful_group_keys_orderings()
- 91143c03d4ca 17.0 landed
-
Fix asymmetry in setting EquivalenceClass.ec_sortref
- 199012a3d844 17.0 landed
-
Multiple revisions to the GROUP BY reordering tests
- 874d817baa16 17.0 landed
-
Get rid of pg_class usage in SJE regression tests
- e1b7fde418f2 17.0 landed
-
Rename index "abc" in aggregates.sql
- b91f91870828 17.0 landed
-
Explore alternative orderings of group-by pathkeys during optimization.
- 0452b461bc40 17.0 landed
-
Generalize the common code of adding sort before processing of grouping
- 7ab80ac1caf9 17.0 landed
-
Fix out-dated comment in preprocess_groupclause()
- f6c70b81802a 15.0 landed
- 78a9af1a2764 16.0 landed
-
Force parallelism in partition_aggregate
- 2fe6b2a806f2 16.0 landed
- 01474f56981a 15.0 landed
-
Optimize order of GROUP BY keys
- db0d67db2401 15.0 landed
Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov@gmail.com> writes: > On Wed, Dec 27, 2023 at 5:23 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> I think it's a fool's errand to even try to separate different sort >> column orderings by cost. > Besides sorting column orderings by cost, this patch also tries to > match GROUP BY pathkeys to input pathkeys and ORDER BY pathkeys. Do > you think there is a chance for the second part if we leave the cost > part aside? I think it's definitely reasonable to try to match up available orderings, because that doesn't really require fine distinctions of cost: either it matches or it doesn't. Eliminating a sort step entirely is clearly a win. (Incremental sort complicates this though. I doubt our cost model for incremental sorts is any good either, so I am not eager to rely on that more heavily.) regards, tom lane