Horton

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Incremental sort

Alexander Korotkov <a.korotkov@postgrespro.ru>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Alexander Korotkov <a.korotkov@postgrespro.ru>
To: Antonin Houska <ah@cybertec.at>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2018-01-08T19:17:55Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Attachments

On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 2:29 PM, Antonin Houska <ah@cybertec.at> wrote:

> Alexander Korotkov <a.korotkov@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
>
> > Antonin Houska <ah@cybertec.at> wrote:
>
> > >  Shouldn't the test contain *both* cases?
>
> > Thank you for pointing that. Sure, both cases are better. I've added
> second case as well as comments. Patch is attached.
>
> I'm fine with the tests now but have a minor comment on this comment:
>
> -- CROSS JOIN, not pushed down, because we don't push down LIMIT and
> remote side
> -- can't perform top-N sort like local side can.
>
> I think the note on LIMIT push-down makes the comment less clear because
> there's no difference in processing the LIMIT: EXPLAIN shows that both
>
> SELECT t1.c1, t2.c1 FROM ft1 t1 CROSS JOIN ft2 t2 ORDER BY t1.c1, t2.c1
> OFFSET
> 100 LIMIT 10;
>
> and
>
> SELECT t1.c3, t2.c3 FROM ft1 t1 CROSS JOIN ft2 t2 ORDER BY t1.c3, t2.c3
> OFFSET
> 100 LIMIT 10;
>
> evaluate the LIMIT clause only locally.
>
> What I consider the important difference is that the 2nd case does not
> generate the appropriate input for remote incremental sort (while
> incremental
> sort tends to be very cheap). Therefore it's cheaper to do no remote sort
> at
> all and perform the top-N sort locally than to do a regular
> (non-incremental)
> remote sort.
>

Agree, these comments are not clear enough.  I've rewritten comments: they
became much
more wordy, but now they look clearer for me.  Also I've swapped the
queries order, for me
it seems to easier for understanding.


> I have no other questions about this patch. I expect the CFM to set the
> status
> to "ready for committer" as soon as the other reviewers confirm they're
> happy
> about the patch status.


Good, thank you.  Let's see what other reviewers will say.

------
Alexander Korotkov
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company

Commits

  1. Further adjustments to Hashagg EXPLAIN ANALYZE output

  2. Rework EXPLAIN format for incremental sort

  3. Fix typos and improve incremental sort comments

  4. Stabilize incremental_sort tests

  5. Minor improvements in Incremental Sort explain

  6. Consider Incremental Sort paths at additional places

  7. Fix representation of SORT_TYPE_STILL_IN_PROGRESS.

  8. Fix failures in incremental_sort due to number of workers

  9. Fix show_incremental_sort_info with force_parallel_mode

  10. Implement Incremental Sort

  11. Fix handling of "Subplans Removed" field in EXPLAIN output.

  12. Fix EXPLAIN (SETTINGS) to follow policy about when to print empty fields.

  13. Ensure plpgsql result tuples have the right composite type marking.

  14. Propagate sort instrumentation from workers back to leader.

  15. Make new regression test case parallel-safe, and improve its output.

  16. Push limit through subqueries to underlying sort, where possible.

  17. Fix inappropriate printing of never-measured times in EXPLAIN.

  18. Fix some infelicities in EXPLAIN output for parallel query plans.