On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 2:16 AM, Paul Ramsey wrote:
> Shouldn’t parallel aggregate come into play regardless of scan selectivity?
> I know in PostGIS land there’s a lot of stuff like:
>
> SELECT ST_Union(geom) FROM t GROUP BY areacode;
>
> Basically, in the BI case,
On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 6:48 PM, David Rowley
wrote:
> On 21 December 2015 at 17:23, Haribabu Kommi
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Attached latest performance report. Parallel aggregate is having some
>> overhead
>> in case of low selectivity.This can
On December 21, 2015 at 2:33:56 AM, Haribabu Kommi (kommi.harib...@gmail.com)
wrote:
Yes the query is producing more groups according to the selectivity.
For example - scan selectivity - 40, the number of groups - 400
Following is the query:
SELECT tenpoCord,
SUM(yokinZandaka) AS
On 21 December 2015 at 17:23, Haribabu Kommi
wrote:
>
> Attached latest performance report. Parallel aggregate is having some
> overhead
> in case of low selectivity.This can be avoided with the help of cost
> comparison
> between normal and parallel aggregates.
>
>
Hi,
On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 5:59 AM, David Rowley
wrote:
> One thing I noticed is that you're only enabling Parallel aggregation when
> there's already a Gather node in the plan. Perhaps this is fine for a proof
> of concept, but I'm wondering how we can move forward
On 16 December 2015 at 18:11, Haribabu Kommi
wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 8:04 AM, Paul Ramsey
> wrote:
> > But the run dies.
> >
> > NOTICE: SRID value -32897 converted to the officially unknown SRID
> value 0
> > ERROR: Unknown
On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 8:04 AM, Paul Ramsey wrote:
> But the run dies.
>
> NOTICE: SRID value -32897 converted to the officially unknown SRID value 0
> ERROR: Unknown geometry type: 2139062143 - Invalid type
>
> From the message it looks like geometry gets corrupted
On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 10:42 PM, Haribabu Kommi
wrote:
>
> Here I attached a POC patch of parallel aggregate based on combine
> aggregate patch. This patch contains the combine aggregate changes
> also. This patch generates and executes the parallel aggregate plan
> as
On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 5:42 PM, Haribabu Kommi
wrote:
> 3. Performance test to observe the effect of parallel aggregate.
Here I attached the performance test report of parallel aggregate.
Summary of the result is:
1. Parallel aggregate is not giving any improvement or
On Sat, Dec 12, 2015 at 8:42 AM, David Rowley
wrote:
> On 12 December 2015 at 04:00, Robert Haas wrote:
>>
>> I'd like to commit David Rowley's patch from the other thread first,
>> and then deal with this one afterwards. The only thing I
On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 4:42 PM, David Rowley
wrote:
> On 12 December 2015 at 04:00, Robert Haas wrote:
>> I'd like to commit David Rowley's patch from the other thread first,
>> and then deal with this one afterwards. The only thing I feel
On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 1:42 AM, Haribabu Kommi
wrote:
> Here I attached a POC patch of parallel aggregate based on combine
> aggregate patch. This patch contains the combine aggregate changes
> also. This patch generates and executes the parallel aggregate plan
> as
On 12 December 2015 at 04:00, Robert Haas wrote:
>
> I'd like to commit David Rowley's patch from the other thread first,
> and then deal with this one afterwards. The only thing I feel
> strongly needs to be changed in that patch is CFUNC -> COMBINEFUNC,
> for clarity.
On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 6:06 PM, David Rowley
wrote:
> On 3 December 2015 at 19:24, Haribabu Kommi
> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 4:18 PM, David Rowley
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > I just wanted to
On 3 December 2015 at 19:24, Haribabu Kommi
wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 4:18 PM, David Rowley
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I just wanted to cross post here to mark that I've posted an updated
> patch
> > for combining aggregate states:
On 20 October 2015 at 23:23, David Rowley
wrote:
> On 13 October 2015 at 20:57, Haribabu Kommi
> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 5:53 PM, David Rowley
>> wrote:
>> > On 13 October 2015 at 17:09, Haribabu
On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 4:18 PM, David Rowley
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I just wanted to cross post here to mark that I've posted an updated patch
> for combining aggregate states:
>
On 13 October 2015 at 20:57, Haribabu Kommi
wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 5:53 PM, David Rowley
> wrote:
> > On 13 October 2015 at 17:09, Haribabu Kommi
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 12:14 PM,
On 13 October 2015 at 02:14, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 10:07 PM, Haribabu Kommi
> wrote:
> > Parallel aggregate is the feature doing the aggregation job parallel
> > with the help of Gather and
> > partial seq scan nodes. The
On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 5:53 PM, David Rowley
wrote:
> On 13 October 2015 at 17:09, Haribabu Kommi
> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 12:14 PM, Robert Haas
>> wrote:
>> > Also, I think the path for parallel
On 13 October 2015 at 17:09, Haribabu Kommi
wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 12:14 PM, Robert Haas
> wrote:
> > Also, I think the path for parallel aggregation should probably be
> > something like FinalizeAgg -> Gather -> PartialAgg -> some
On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 10:07 PM, Haribabu Kommi
wrote:
> Parallel aggregate is the feature doing the aggregation job parallel
> with the help of Gather and
> partial seq scan nodes. The following is the basic overview of the
> parallel aggregate changes.
>
> Decision
On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 12:14 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 10:07 PM, Haribabu Kommi
> wrote:
>> Parallel aggregate is the feature doing the aggregation job parallel
>> with the help of Gather and
>> partial seq scan nodes. The
On 12 October 2015 at 15:07, Haribabu Kommi
wrote:
> Parallel aggregate is the feature doing the aggregation job parallel
> with the help of Gather and
> partial seq scan nodes. The following is the basic overview of the
> parallel aggregate changes.
>
> Decision phase:
Parallel aggregate is the feature doing the aggregation job parallel
with the help of Gather and
partial seq scan nodes. The following is the basic overview of the
parallel aggregate changes.
Decision phase:
Based on the following conditions, the parallel aggregate plan is generated.
- check
On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 2:25 PM, David Rowley
wrote:
> On 12 October 2015 at 15:07, Haribabu Kommi
> wrote:
>>
>> - check whether the aggregate supports parallelism or not.
>>
>> As for first patch, I thought of supporting only some
101 - 126 of 126 matches
Mail list logo