From: | "Tomas Vondra" <tv(at)fuzzy(dot)cz> |
---|---|
To: | "Atri Sharma" <atri(dot)jiit(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | "Tomas Vondra" <tv(at)fuzzy(dot)cz>, "Pg Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Re: custom hash-based COUNT(DISTINCT) aggregate - unexpectedly high memory consumption |
Date: | 2013-10-08 14:28:24 |
Message-ID: | 152db6b33e29e83c1d1e6957b5a7c198.squirrel@sq.gransy.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 8 Říjen 2013, 13:52, Atri Sharma wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Tomas Vondra <tv(at)fuzzy(dot)cz> wrote:
>> On 8 Říjen 2013, 11:42, Atri Sharma wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I've made some significant improvements in the chaining version (in
>>>> the
>>>> master branch), now getting about the memory consumption I've
>>>> estimated.
>>>>
>>> I agree, we can hope to reduce the memory consumption by making changes
>>> in
>>> the current chaining implementation. I would like to look into changing
>>> the data structure used for chaining from singly linked list to maybe
>>> skip
>>> list or something else.
>>
>> Just to be sure - I haven't been messing with the HashAggregate
>> implementation directly, but with a custom aggregate. But feel free to
>> tweak the built-in hash table ;-)
>>
>> Tomas
>>
>
> Heh.
>
> Do you mind if I try it out on the custom agg you built? I assume it
> is on the github repo link you shared?
Not at all, that's why I pushed that into a public repo. The "master"
branch contains the regular chained hash table, the open addressing is in
a separate branch (also in the repo).
Tomas
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alexander Korotkov | 2013-10-08 14:47:27 | Re: GIN improvements part 1: additional information |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2013-10-08 14:26:26 | Release note fix for timeline item |