Re: Disk-based hash aggregate's cost model

On Tue, 2020-09-01 at 23:19 +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> FWIW any thoughts about the different in temp size compared to
> CP_SMALL_TLIST?

Are you referring to results from a while ago? In this thread I don't
see what you're referring to.

I tried in a simple case on REL_13_STABLE, with and without the
CP_SMALL_TLIST change, and I saw only a tiny difference. Do you have a
current case that shows a larger difference?

The only thing I can think of that might change is the size of the null
bitmap or how fields are aligned.

Regards,
	Jeff Davis