On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 1:14 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 3:48 PM, Paul Ramsey <pram...@cleverelephant.ca>
>>> I have no idea why the cost adjustments that you need are different
>>> for the scan case and the aggregate case. That does seem problematic,
>>> but I just don't know why it's happening.
>> What might be a good way to debug it? Is there a piece of code I can
>> look at to try and figure out the contribution of COST in either case?
> Well, the cost calculations are mostly in costsize.c, but I dunno how
> much that helps. Maybe it would help if you posted some EXPLAIN
> ANALYZE output for the different cases, with and without parallelism?
> One thing I noticed about this output (from your blog)...
> Finalize Aggregate
> (cost=16536.53..16536.79 rows=1 width=8)
> (actual time=2263.638..2263.639 rows=1 loops=1)
> -> Gather
> (cost=16461.22..16461.53 rows=3 width=32)
> (actual time=754.309..757.204 rows=4 loops=1)
> Number of Workers: 3
> -> Partial Aggregate
> (cost=15461.22..15461.23 rows=1 width=32)
> (actual time=676.738..676.739 rows=1 loops=4)
> -> Parallel Seq Scan on pd
> (cost=0.00..13856.38 rows=64 width=2311)
> (actual time=3.009..27.321 rows=42 loops=4)
> Filter: (fed_num = 47005)
> Rows Removed by Filter: 17341
> Planning time: 0.219 ms
> Execution time: 2264.684 ms
> ...is that the finalize aggregate phase is estimated to be very cheap,
> but it's actually wicked expensive. We get the results from the
> workers in only 750 ms, but it takes another second and a half to
> aggregate those 4 rows???
This is probably a vivid example of the bad behaviour of the naive
union approach. If we have worker states 1,2,3,4 and we go
Then we get kind of a worst case complexity situation where we three
times union an increasingly complex object on the left with a simpler
object on the right. Also, if the objects went into the transfer
functions in relatively non-spatially correlated order, the polygons
coming out of the transfer functions could be quite complex, and each
merge would only add complexity to the output until the final merge
which melts away all the remaining internal boundaries.
I'm surprised it's quite so awful at the end though, and less awful in
the worker stage... how do the workers end up getting rows to work on?
1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4? or 1,1,1,2,2,2,3,3,3,4,4,4? The former could
result in optimally inefficient unions, given a spatially correlated
input (surprisingly common in load-once GIS tables)
> Robert Haas
> EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
> The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org)
To make changes to your subscription: