Horton

Re: POC: GROUP BY optimization

Andrei Lepikhov <a.lepikhov@postgrespro.ru>

View thread
From: Andrei Lepikhov <a.lepikhov@postgrespro.ru>
To: jian he <jian.universality@gmail.com>, Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov@gmail.com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Richard Guo <guofenglinux@gmail.com>, 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>
Date: 2024-05-16T07:47:01Z
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 →

  1. Restore preprocess_groupclause()

  2. Rename PathKeyInfo to GroupByOrdering

  3. Add invariants check to get_useful_group_keys_orderings()

  4. Fix asymmetry in setting EquivalenceClass.ec_sortref

  5. Multiple revisions to the GROUP BY reordering tests

  6. Get rid of pg_class usage in SJE regression tests

  7. Rename index "abc" in aggregates.sql

  8. Explore alternative orderings of group-by pathkeys during optimization.

  9. Generalize the common code of adding sort before processing of grouping

  10. Fix out-dated comment in preprocess_groupclause()

  11. Force parallelism in partition_aggregate

  12. Optimize order of GROUP BY keys

On 24.04.2024 13:25, jian he wrote:
> hi.
> I found an interesting case.
> 
> CREATE TABLE t1 AS
>    SELECT (i % 10)::numeric AS x,(i % 10)::int8 AS y,'abc' || i % 10 AS
> z, i::int4 AS w
>    FROM generate_series(1, 100) AS i;
> CREATE INDEX t1_x_y_idx ON t1 (x, y);
> ANALYZE t1;
> SET enable_hashagg = off;
> SET enable_seqscan = off;
> 
> EXPLAIN (COSTS OFF) SELECT count(*) FROM t1 GROUP BY x,z,y,w;
> EXPLAIN (COSTS OFF) SELECT count(*) FROM t1 GROUP BY x,w,y,z;
> EXPLAIN (COSTS OFF) SELECT count(*) FROM t1 GROUP BY x,z,w,y;
> EXPLAIN (COSTS OFF) SELECT count(*) FROM t1 GROUP BY x,w,z,y;
> the above part will use:
>    ->  Incremental Sort
>           Sort Key: x, $, $, $
>           Presorted Key: x
>           ->  Index Scan using t1_x_y_idx on t1
> 
> EXPLAIN (COSTS OFF) SELECT count(*) FROM t1 GROUP BY z,y,w,x;
> EXPLAIN (COSTS OFF) SELECT count(*) FROM t1 GROUP BY w,y,z,x;
> EXPLAIN (COSTS OFF) SELECT count(*) FROM t1 GROUP BY y,z,x,w;
> EXPLAIN (COSTS OFF) SELECT count(*) FROM t1 GROUP BY y,w,x,z;
> EXPLAIN (COSTS OFF) SELECT count(*) FROM t1 GROUP BY y,x,z,w;
> EXPLAIN (COSTS OFF) SELECT count(*) FROM t1 GROUP BY y,x,w,z;
> 
> these will use:
>    ->  Incremental Sort
>           Sort Key: x, y, $, $
>           Presorted Key: x, y
>           ->  Index Scan using t1_x_y_idx on t1
> 
> I guess this is fine, but not optimal?
It looks like a bug right now - in current implementation we don't 
differentiate different orders. So:
1. Applying all the patches from the thread which I proposed as an 
answer to T.Lane last rebuke - does behavior still the same?.
2. Could you try to find the reason?

-- 
regards,
Andrei Lepikhov
Postgres Professional