From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Tomas Vondra <tv(at)fuzzy(dot)cz>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: 9.5: Memory-bounded HashAgg |
Date: | 2014-08-19 07:52:45 |
Message-ID: | 1408434765.2335.206.camel@jeff-desktop |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, 2014-08-15 at 13:53 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> I think that's right, and I rather like your (Jeff's) approach. It's
> definitely true that we could do better if we have a mechanism for
> serializing and deserializing group states, but (1) I think an awful
> lot of cases would get an awful lot better even just with the approach
> proposed here and (2) I doubt we would make the
> serialization/deserialization interfaces mandatory, so even if we had
> that we'd probably want a fallback strategy anyway.
Thank you for taking a look.
To solve the problem for array_agg, that would open up two potentially
lengthy discussions:
1. Trying to support non-serialized representations (like
ArrayBuildState for array_agg) as a real type rather than using
"internal".
2. What changes should we make to the aggregate API? As long as we're
changing/extending it, should we go the whole way and support partial
aggregation[1] (particularly useful for parallelism)?
Both of those discussions are worth having, and perhaps they can happen
in parallel as I wrap up this patch.
I'll see whether I can get consensus that my approach is (potentially)
commit-worthy, and your statement that it (potentially) solves a real
problem is a big help.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
[1]
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/craigfr/archive/2008/01/18/partial-aggregation.aspx
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2014-08-19 08:07:30 | Re: WAL format and API changes (9.5) |
Previous Message | Fujii Masao | 2014-08-19 07:47:52 | Re: [REVIEW] Re: Compression of full-page-writes |