Re: Optimizing aggregates
От | Andres Freund |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Optimizing aggregates |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20160831155153.5tnt4z5lzjhsjzlw@alap3.anarazel.de обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Optimizing aggregates (Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>) |
Ответы |
Re: Optimizing aggregates
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Hi, On 2016-08-31 17:47:18 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > # ........ ........ .......... ................. > ........................................ > # > 25.70% 0.00% postmaster [unknown] [k] 0000000000000000 > 14.23% 13.75% postmaster postgres [.] ExecProject > ExecProject stands out. I find that pretty surprising. > > We're using ExecProject to extract the arguments from the input tuples, to > pass to the aggregate transition functions. It looks like that's a pretty > expensive way of doing it, for a typical aggregate that takes only one > argument. > > We actually used to call ExecEvalExpr() directly for each argument, but that > was changed by the patch that added support for ordered set aggregates. It > looks like that was a bad idea, from a performance point of view. I complained about that as well http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/20160519175727.ymv2y5tye4qgcmqx%40alap3.anarazel.de > I propose that we go back to calling ExecEvalExpr() directly, for > non-ordered aggregates, per the attached patch. That makes that example > query about 10% faster on my laptop, which is in line with the fact that > ExecProject() accounted for about 13% of the CPU time. My approach is a bit different. I've first combined the projection for all the aggregates, ordered set, or not, into one projetion. That got rid of a fair amount of overhead when you have multiple aggregates. I attached an, probably out of date, WIP version of that patch. Secondly, I'm working on overhauling expression evaluation to be faster. Even without the ExecProject overhead, the computations very quickly become the bottleneck. During that I pretty much merged ExecProject and ExecEvalExpr into one - they're really not that different, and the distinction serves no purpose, except to increase the number of function calls. The reason I'm working on getting rid of targetlist SRFs is precisely that. A proof of concept of that is attached to http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/20160714011850.bd5zhu35szle3n3c%40alap3.anarazel.de Greetings, Andres Freund
Вложения
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: