Horton

Re: Partition-wise aggregation/grouping

David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Jeevan Chalke <jeevan.chalke@enterprisedb.com>
Cc: Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh.bapat@enterprisedb.com>, Rajkumar Raghuwanshi <rajkumar.raghuwanshi@enterprisedb.com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2017-10-13T07:43:45Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On 13 October 2017 at 19:36, Jeevan Chalke
<jeevan.chalke@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> I have tried exactly same tests to get to this factor on my local developer
> machine. And with parallelism enabled I got this number as 7.9. However, if
> I disable the parallelism (and I believe David too disabled that), I get
> this number as 1.8. Whereas for 10000 rows, I get this number to 1.7
>
> -- With Gather
> # select current_Setting('cpu_tuple_cost')::float8 / ((10633.56 * (81.035 /
> 72.450) - 10633.56)  / 1000000);
> 7.9
>
> -- Without Gather
> # select current_Setting('cpu_tuple_cost')::float8 / ((16925.01 * (172.838 /
> 131.400) - 16925.01)  / 1000000);
> 1.8
>
> -- With 10000 rows (so no Gather too)
> # select current_Setting('cpu_tuple_cost')::float8 / ((170.01 * (1.919 /
> 1.424) - 170.01)  / 10000);
> 1.7
>
> So it is not so straight forward to come up the correct heuristic here. Thus
> using 50% of cpu_tuple_cost look good to me here.
>
> As suggested by Ashutosh and Robert, attached separate small WIP patch for
> it.

Good to see it stays fairly consistent at different tuple counts, and
is not too far away from what I got on this machine.

I looked over the patch and saw this:

@@ -1800,6 +1827,9 @@ cost_merge_append(Path *path, PlannerInfo *root,
  */
  run_cost += cpu_operator_cost * tuples;

+ /* Add MergeAppend node overhead like we do it for the Append node */
+ run_cost += cpu_tuple_cost * DEFAULT_APPEND_COST_FACTOR * tuples;
+
  path->startup_cost = startup_cost + input_startup_cost;
  path->total_cost = startup_cost + run_cost + input_total_cost;
 }

You're doing that right after a comment that says we don't do that. It
also does look like the "run_cost += cpu_operator_cost * tuples" is
trying to do the same thing, so perhaps it's worth just replacing
that, which by default will double that additional cost, although
doing so would have the planner slightly prefer a MergeAppend to an
Append than previously.

+#define DEFAULT_APPEND_COST_FACTOR 0.5

I don't really think the DEFAULT_APPEND_COST_FACTOR adds much. it
means very little by itself. It also seems that most of the other cost
functions just use the magic number.

-- 
 David Rowley                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

Commits

  1. postgres_fdw: Push down partition-wise aggregation.

  2. Remove 'target' from GroupPathExtraData.

  3. Implement partition-wise grouping/aggregation.

  4. Don't pass the grouping target around unnecessarily.

  5. Determine grouping strategies in create_grouping_paths.

  6. Defer creation of partially-grouped relation until it's needed.

  7. Split create_grouping_paths into degenerate and non-degenerate cases.

  8. Pass additional arguments to a couple of grouping-related functions.

  9. Fix logic error in add_paths_to_partial_grouping_rel.

  10. Minor cleanup of code related to partially_grouped_rel.

  11. Add a new upper planner relation for partially-aggregated results.

  12. Charge cpu_tuple_cost * 0.5 for Append and MergeAppend nodes.

  13. Rename enable_partition_wise_join to enable_partitionwise_join

  14. Factor some code out of create_grouping_paths.

  15. Pad XLogReaderState's main_data buffer more aggressively.

  16. Prevent int128 from requiring more than MAXALIGN alignment.

  17. Fix DROP SUBSCRIPTION hang

  18. Inject $(ICU_LIBS) regardless of platform.

  19. Some preliminary refactoring towards partitionwise join.