On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 6:48 PM, David Rowley
<david.row...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On 21 December 2015 at 17:23, Haribabu Kommi <kommi.harib...@gmail.com>
> 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, Thanks for posting an updated patch.
>
> Would you be able to supply a bit more detail on your benchmark? I'm
> surprised by the slowdown reported with the high selectivity version. It
> gives me the impression that the benchmark might be producing lots of groups
> which need to be pushed through the tuple queue to the main process. I think
> it would be more interesting to see benchmarks with varying number of
> groups, rather than scan selectivity. Selectivity was important for parallel
> seqscan, but less so for this, as it's aggregated groups we're sending to
> main process, not individual tuples.
Yes the query is producing more groups according to the selectivity.
For example - scan selectivity - 400000, the number of groups - 400
Following is the query:
SELECT tenpoCord,
SUM(yokinZandaka) AS yokinZandakaxGOUKEI,
SUM(kashikoshiZandaka) AS kashikoshiZandakaxGOUKEI,
SUM(kouzasuu) AS kouzasuuxGOUKEI,
SUM(sougouKouzasuu) AS sougouKouzasuuxGOUKEI
FROM public.test01
WHERE tenpoCord <= '001' AND
kamokuCord = '01' AND
kouzaKatujyoutaiCord = '0'
GROUP BY kinkoCord,tenpoCord;
Regards,
Hari Babu
Fujitsu Australia
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
