Re: POC: GROUP BY optimization

Andrei Lepikhov <a.lepikhov@postgrespro.ru>

From: Andrei Lepikhov <a.lepikhov@postgrespro.ru>

To: Richard Guo <guofenglinux@gmail.com>, Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov@gmail.com>

Cc: Pavel Borisov <pashkin.elfe@gmail.com>, vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com>, 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>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

Date: 2024-01-15T09:46:03Z

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

On 15/1/2024 13:42, Richard Guo wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Jan 15, 2024 at 8:20 AM Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov@gmail.com 
> <mailto:aekorotkov@gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
>     Thank you for providing the test case relevant for this code change.
>     The revised patch incorporating this change is attached.  Now the
>     patchset looks good to me.  I'm going to push it if there are no
>     objections.
> 
> 
> Seems I'm late for the party.  Can we hold for several more days?  I'd
> like to have a review on this patch.
Get on board! It looks like this feature needs as much review as 
possible (likewise SJE).

-- 
regards,
Andrei Lepikhov
Postgres Professional