On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 8:07 PM, Jeevan Chalke
<jeevan.cha...@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
Here are some more review comments esp. on
try_partitionwise_grouping() function. BTW name of that function
doesn't go in sync with enable_partitionwise_aggregation (which btw is
in sync with enable_fooagg GUCs). But it goes in sync with
create_grouping_paths(). It looks like we have already confused
aggregation and grouping e.g. enable_hashagg may affect path creation
when there is no aggregation involved i.e. only grouping is involved
but create_grouping_paths will create paths when there is no grouping
involved. Generally it looks like the function names use grouping to
mean both aggregation and grouping but GUCs use aggregation to mean
both of those. So, the naming in this patch looks consistent with the
current naming conventions.

+        grouped_rel->part_scheme = input_rel->part_scheme;
+        grouped_rel->nparts = nparts;
+        grouped_rel->boundinfo = input_rel->boundinfo;
+        grouped_rel->part_rels = part_rels;

You need to set the part_exprs which will provide partition keys for this
partitioned relation. I think, we should include all the part_exprs of
input_rel which are part of GROUP BY clause. Since any other expressions in
part_exprs are not part of GROUP BY clause, they can not appear in the
targetlist without an aggregate on top. So they can't be part of the partition
keys of the grouped relation.

In create_grouping_paths() we fetch both partial as well as fully grouped rel
for given input relation. But in case of partial aggregation, we don't need
fully grouped rel since we are not computing full aggregates for the children.
Since fetch_upper_rel() creates a relation when one doesn't exist, we are
unnecessarily creating fully grouped rels in this case. For thousands of
partitions that's a lot of memory wasted.

I see a similar issue with create_grouping_paths() when we are computing only
full aggregates (either because partial aggregation is not possible or because
parallelism is not possible). In that case, we unconditionally create partially
grouped rels. That too would waste a lot of memory.

I think that partially_grouped_rel, when required, is partitioned irrespective
of whether we do full aggregation per partition or not. So, if we have its
part_rels and other partitioning properties set. I agree that right now we
won't use this information anywhere. It may be useful, in case we device a way
to use partially_grouped_rel directly without using grouped_rel for planning
beyond grouping, which seems unlikely.

+        /*
+         * Parallel aggregation requires partial target, so compute it here
+         * and translate all vars. For partial aggregation, we need it
+         * anyways.
+         */
+        partial_target = make_partial_grouping_target(root, target,
+                                                      havingQual);

Don't we have this available in partially_grouped_rel?

That shows one asymmetry that Robert's refactoring has introduced. We don't set
reltarget of grouped_rel but set reltarget of partially_grouped_rel. If
reltarget of grouped_rel changes across paths (the reason why we have not set
it in grouped_rel), shouldn't reltarget of partially grouped paths change

+ * group_by_has_partkey
+ *
+ * Returns true, if all the partition keys of the given relation are part of
+ * the GROUP BY clauses, false otherwise.
+ */
+static bool
+group_by_has_partkey(RelOptInfo *input_rel, PathTarget *target,
+                     List *groupClause)

We could modify this function to return the list of part_exprs which are part
of group clause and use that as the partition keys of the grouped_rel if
required. If group by doesn't have all the partition keys, the function would
return a NULL list.

Right now, in case of full aggregation, partially_grouped_rel is populated with
the partial paths created by adding partial aggregation to the partial paths of
input relation. But we are not trying to create partial paths by (parallel)
appending the (non)partial paths from the child partially_grouped_rel. Have we
thought about that? Would such paths have different shapes from the ones that
we create now and will they be better?

Best Wishes,
Ashutosh Bapat
EnterpriseDB Corporation
The Postgres Database Company

Reply via email to