On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 3:33 AM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > On 2016-11-18 08:00:40 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 2:28 PM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: >> > I've a working fix for this, and for a similar issue Robert found. I'm >> > still playing around with it, but basically the fix is to make the >> > growth policy a bit more adaptive. >> >> Any chance you can post a patch soon? > > Here's my WIP series addressing this and related problems. With this > we're again noticeably faster than the dynahash implementation, in both > the case here, and the query you brought up over IM. > > This definitely needs some more TLC, but the general approach seems > good. I particularly like that it apparently allows us to increase the > default fillfactor without much downside according to my measurements.
Are you going to commit something here? At least enough to make Finalize HashAgg -> Gather -> Partial HashAgg terminate in finite time? Because the fact that it doesn't really sucks. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
