Re: [PATCH] Incremental sort (was: PoC: Partial sort)
Rafia Sabih <rafia.pghackers@gmail.com>
On Tue, 30 Jul 2019 at 02:17, Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 01:34:22PM +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote: > > > > ... > > > >I wonder if we're approaching this wrong. Maybe we should not reverse > >engineer queries for the various places, but just start with a set of > >queries that we want to optimize, and then identify which places in the > >planner need to be modified. > > > > I've decided to do a couple of experiments, trying to make my mind about > which modified places matter to diffrent queries. But instead of trying > to reverse engineer the queries, I've taken a different approach - I've > compiled a list of queries that I think are sensible and relevant, and > then planned them with incremental sort enabled in different places. > > I don't have any clear conclusions at this point - it does show some of > the places don't change plan for any of the queries, although there may > be some additional query where it'd make a difference. > > But I'm posting this mostly because it might be useful. I've initially > planned to move changes that add incremental sort paths to separate > patches, and then apply/skip different subsets of those patches. But > then I realized there's a better way to do this - I've added a bunch of > GUCs, one for each such place. This allows doing this testing without > having to rebuild repeatedly. > > I'm not going to post the patch(es) with extra GUCs here, because it'd > just confuse the patch tester, but it's available here: > > https://github.com/tvondra/postgres/tree/incremental-sort-20190730 > > There are 10 GUCs, one for each place in planner where incremental sort > paths are constructed. By default all those are set to 'false' so no > incremental sort paths are built. If you do > > SET devel_create_ordered_paths = on; > > it'll start creating the paths in non-parallel in create_ordered_paths. > Then you may enable devel_create_ordered_paths_parallel to also consider > parallel paths, etc. > > The list of queries (synthetic, but hopefully sufficiently realistic) > and a couple of scripts to collect the plans is in this repository: > > https://github.com/tvondra/incremental-sort-tests-2 > > There's also a spreadsheet with a summary of results, with a visual > representation of which GUCs affect which queries. > > Wow, that sounds like an elaborate experiment. But where is this spreadsheet you mentioned ? -- Regards, Rafia Sabih
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