Re: POC: GROUP BY optimization
Claudio Freire <klaussfreire@gmail.com>
From: Claudio Freire <klaussfreire@gmail.com>
To: Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Teodor Sigaev <teodor@sigaev.ru>,
PostgreSQL-Dev <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2018-06-06T23:29:55Z
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 Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 8:06 PM Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > >>> Comparison cost can be approximated probabilistically as: > >>> > >>> cost_comp = sum(cost_op_n * (1.0 / ndistinct(col_1_to_n))) > >>> > >>> Where cost_op_n is the cost of the comparison function for column N, > >>> and ndistinct(col_1_to_n) is an estimation of the number of distinct > >>> values for columns prior to N in the sort order. > >>> > >>> You can approximate ndistinct as the product of ndistinct of previous > >>> columns, or use extended statistics when available. > >>> > >> > >> Sure. The trouble is this also assumes uniform distribution, which is > >> not always the case. > > > > Well, (1.0 / ndistinct) = p(left == right). > > > > If you can compute a better p(left == right) with an MCV, you can get > > a better estimate. If you have an MCV. But that'd be a bit expensive, > > and I'm not sure it's all that relevant. > > > > To what degree does improving this produce better plans? As long as > > average expected cost is relatively well estimated (as in, one sort > > order relative to another sort order), it won't affect the decision. > > > > I'd bet I can construct corner-case examples with vastly different > behavior depending on column data distributions, so it's not entirely > insignificant. How important is it in practice I don't know. I guess that can only be answered by building that solution and testing it against the corner cases.