Re: Performance degradation in Bitmapscan (commit 75ae538bc3168bf44475240d4e0487ee2f3bb376)
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Performance degradation in Bitmapscan (commit 75ae538bc3168bf44475240d4e0487ee2f3bb376) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+TgmoawOwGYXgq34ojBNqV9Pjk4OSoqqGVAfyyReLeYxZeQjg@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Performance degradation in Bitmapscan (commit 75ae538bc3168bf44475240d4e0487ee2f3bb376) (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] Performance degradation in Bitmapscan (commit 75ae538bc3168bf44475240d4e0487ee2f3bb376)
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 3:33 AM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote: > On 2016-11-18 08:00:40 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 2:28 PM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote: >> > I've a working fix for this, and for a similar issue Robert found. I'm >> > still playing around with it, but basically the fix is to make the >> > growth policy a bit more adaptive. >> >> Any chance you can post a patch soon? > > Here's my WIP series addressing this and related problems. With this > we're again noticeably faster than the dynahash implementation, in both > the case here, and the query you brought up over IM. > > This definitely needs some more TLC, but the general approach seems > good. I particularly like that it apparently allows us to increase the > default fillfactor without much downside according to my measurements. Are you going to commit something here? At least enough to make Finalize HashAgg -> Gather -> Partial HashAgg terminate in finite time? Because the fact that it doesn't really sucks. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: