On Sun, 2014-12-28 at 12:37 -0800, Jeff Davis wrote: > I feel like I made a mistake -- can someone please do a > sanity check on my numbers?
I forgot to randomize the inputs, which doesn't matter much for hashagg but does matter for sort. New data script attached. The results are even *better* for disk-based hashagg than the previous numbers suggest. Here are some new numbers: work_mem='1MB': sort+group (s) hashagg (s) singleton q1 21 10 singleton q2 12 8 even q1 20 7 even q2 13 5 skew q1 22 6 skew q2 16 4 work_mem='4MB': sort+group (s) hashagg (s) singleton q1 17 10 singleton q2 11 6 even q1 16 7 even q2 11 5 skew q1 19 6 skew q2 13 4 work_mem='16MB': sort+group (s) hashagg (s) singleton q1 16 11 singleton q2 11 7 even q1 15 8 even q2 12 6 skew q1 15 6 skew q2 12 4 work_mem='64MB': sort+group (s) hashagg (s) singleton q1 18 12 singleton q2 13 8 even q1 17 10 even q2 13 6 skew q1 17 6 skew q2 14 4 work_mem='256MB': sort+group (s) hashagg (s) singleton q1 18 12 singleton q2 14 7 even q1 16 9 even q2 14 5 skew q1 18 6 skew q2 13 4 work_mem='512MB': sort+group (s) hashagg (s) singleton q1 18 12 singleton q2 14 7 even q1 17 9 even q2 14 5 skew q1 17 6 skew q2 13 4 work_mem='2GB': sort+group (s) hashagg (s) singleton q1 11 11 singleton q2 7 6 even q1 10 9 even q2 7 5 skew q1 7 6 skew q2 4 4 Regards, Jeff Davis
hashagg_test_data.sql
Description: application/sql
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers