Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Incremental sort
Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>
On 03/31/2018 10:43 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> ...
> But I'm pretty sure it may lead to surprising behavior - for example if
> you disable incremental sorts (enable_incrementalsort=off), the plan
> will switch to plain sort without the additional costs. So you'll get a
> cheaper plan by disabling some operation. That's surprising.
>
To illustrate this is a valid issue, consider this trivial example:
create table t (a int, b int, c int);
insert into t select 10*random(), 10*random(), 10*random()
from generate_series(1,1000000) s(i);
analyze t;
explain select * from (select * from t order by a,b) foo order by a,b,c;
QUERY PLAN
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incremental Sort (cost=133100.48..264139.27 rows=1000000 width=12)
Sort Key: t.a, t.b, t.c
Presorted Key: t.a, t.b
-> Sort (cost=132154.34..134654.34 rows=1000000 width=12)
Sort Key: t.a, t.b
-> Seq Scan on t (cost=0.00..15406.00 rows=1000000 width=12)
(6 rows)
set enable_incrementalsort = off;
explain select * from (select * from t order by a,b) foo order by a,b,c;
QUERY PLAN
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sort (cost=261402.69..263902.69 rows=1000000 width=12)
Sort Key: t.a, t.b, t.c
-> Sort (cost=132154.34..134654.34 rows=1000000 width=12)
Sort Key: t.a, t.b
-> Seq Scan on t (cost=0.00..15406.00 rows=1000000 width=12)
(5 rows)
So the cost with incremental sort was 264139, and after disabling the
incremental cost it dropped to 263902. Granted, the difference is
negligible in this case, but it's still surprising.
Also, it can be made much more significant by reducing the number of
prefix groups in the data:
truncate t;
insert into t select 1,1,1 from generate_series(1,1000000) s(i);
analyze t;
set enable_incrementalsort = on;
explain select * from (select * from t order by a,b) foo order by a,b,c;
QUERY PLAN
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incremental Sort (cost=324165.83..341665.85 rows=1000000 width=12)
Sort Key: t.a, t.b, t.c
Presorted Key: t.a, t.b
-> Sort (cost=132154.34..134654.34 rows=1000000 width=12)
Sort Key: t.a, t.b
-> Seq Scan on t (cost=0.00..15406.00 rows=1000000 width=12)
(6 rows)
So that's 263902 vs. 341665, yet we still prefer the incremental mode.
regards
--
Tomas Vondra http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
Commits
-
Further adjustments to Hashagg EXPLAIN ANALYZE output
- 40efbf8706cd 14.0 cited
-
Rework EXPLAIN format for incremental sort
- 6a918c3ac8a6 13.0 landed
-
Fix typos and improve incremental sort comments
- 1a40d37a9faf 13.0 landed
-
Stabilize incremental_sort tests
- cea09246e578 13.0 landed
-
Minor improvements in Incremental Sort explain
- d22782a5392f 13.0 landed
-
Consider Incremental Sort paths at additional places
- ba3e76cc571e 13.0 landed
-
Fix representation of SORT_TYPE_STILL_IN_PROGRESS.
- c7654f6a3779 13.0 landed
-
Fix failures in incremental_sort due to number of workers
- 23ba3b5ee278 13.0 landed
-
Fix show_incremental_sort_info with force_parallel_mode
- 7d6d82a52493 13.0 landed
-
Implement Incremental Sort
- d2d8a229bc58 13.0 landed
-
Fix handling of "Subplans Removed" field in EXPLAIN output.
- 7d91b604d9b5 13.0 cited
-
Fix EXPLAIN (SETTINGS) to follow policy about when to print empty fields.
- 3ec20c7091e9 13.0 cited
-
Ensure plpgsql result tuples have the right composite type marking.
- 5683b34956b4 13.0 cited
-
Propagate sort instrumentation from workers back to leader.
- bf11e7ee2e36 11.0 cited
-
Make new regression test case parallel-safe, and improve its output.
- 1177ab1dabf7 11.0 cited
-
Push limit through subqueries to underlying sort, where possible.
- 1f6d515a67ec 11.0 cited
-
Fix inappropriate printing of never-measured times in EXPLAIN.
- 4b234fd8bf21 9.6.0 cited
-
Fix some infelicities in EXPLAIN output for parallel query plans.
- 8ebb69f85445 9.6.0 cited