Re: POC: GROUP BY optimization
David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>
From: David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>
To: Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com>
Cc: Zhihong Yu <zyu@yugabyte.com>,
"Andrey V. Lepikhov" <a.lepikhov@postgrespro.ru>, Teodor Sigaev <teodor@sigaev.ru>,
Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: 2022-07-13T03:37:19Z
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 Thu, 31 Mar 2022 at 12:19, Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > Pushed, after going through the patch once more, running check-world > under valgrind, and updating the commit message. I'm just in this general area of the code again today and wondered about the header comment for the preprocess_groupclause() function. It says: * In principle it might be interesting to consider other orderings of the * GROUP BY elements, which could match the sort ordering of other * possible plans (eg an indexscan) and thereby reduce cost. We don't * bother with that, though. Hashed grouping will frequently win anyway. I'd say this commit makes that paragraph mostly obsolete. It's only true now in the sense that we don't try orders that suit some index that would provide pre-sorted results for a GroupAggregate path. The comment leads me to believe that we don't do anything at all to find a better order, and that's not true now. David