Re: [HACKERS] Combining Aggregates

On 9 April 2016 at 05:49, Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 11:57 AM, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 5:28 PM, David Rowley >> wrote: Is that everything now? I don't see anything about

Re: [HACKERS] Combining Aggregates

On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 11:57 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 5:28 PM, David Rowley > wrote: >>> Is that everything now? I don't see anything about combining aggs in the git >>> log and this is still showing as UnCommitted in

Re: [HACKERS] Combining Aggregates

On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 5:28 PM, David Rowley wrote: >> Is that everything now? I don't see anything about combining aggs in the git >> log and this is still showing as UnCommitted in the CF app. > > There's just a documentation patch and two combine functions for >

Re: [HACKERS] Combining Aggregates

On 6 April 2016 at 22:28, David Rowley wrote: > On 7 April 2016 at 09:25, Simon Riggs wrote: > > On 5 April 2016 at 19:33, Robert Haas wrote: > > > >> > >> Committed 0002+0003 with those changes, some minor cosmetic

Re: [HACKERS] Combining Aggregates

On 7 April 2016 at 09:25, Simon Riggs wrote: > On 5 April 2016 at 19:33, Robert Haas wrote: > >> >> Committed 0002+0003 with those changes, some minor cosmetic stuff, and >> of course the obligatory catversion bump. Oh, and fixed an OID >> conflict

Re: [HACKERS] Combining Aggregates

On 5 April 2016 at 19:33, Robert Haas wrote: > Committed 0002+0003 with those changes, some minor cosmetic stuff, and > of course the obligatory catversion bump. Oh, and fixed an OID > conflict with the patch Magnus just committed. Is that everything now? I don't see

Re: [HACKERS] Combining Aggregates

On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 2:52 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Robert Haas wrote: >> Now, let's suppose that the user sets up a sharded table and then >> says: SELECT a, SUM(b), AVG(c) FROM sometab. At this point, what we'd >> like to have happen is that for each child foreign

Re: [HACKERS] Combining Aggregates

Robert Haas wrote: > Now, let's suppose that the user sets up a sharded table and then > says: SELECT a, SUM(b), AVG(c) FROM sometab. At this point, what we'd > like to have happen is that for each child foreign table, we go and > fetch partially aggregated results. Those children might be

Re: [HACKERS] Combining Aggregates

On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 10:19 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > I'm going to concede the point that this shouldn't really be a > priority for 9.6, but I might want to come back to it later. It seems to me that if two aggregates are using the same transition function, they ought to

Re: [HACKERS] Combining Aggregates

On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 9:30 AM, David Rowley wrote: > On 6 April 2016 at 01:01, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 3:55 AM, David Rowley >>> To be really honest, I'm quite worried that if I go and make this >>> change then my time

Re: [HACKERS] Combining Aggregates

On 6 April 2016 at 01:01, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 3:55 AM, David Rowley >> To be really honest, I'm quite worried that if I go and make this >> change then my time might be wasted as I really think making that >> change this late in the day is just

Re: [HACKERS] Combining Aggregates

On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 3:55 AM, David Rowley wrote: >> I think it might be a good idea if these patches made less use of >> bytea and exposed the numeric transition values as, say, a 2-element >> array of numeric. > > Well, if you have a look at NumericAggState you

Re: [HACKERS] Combining Aggregates

On 5 April 2016 at 16:54, Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 3:34 PM, David Rowley > wrote: >> I wrote 0002 - 0004, these were reviewed by Tomas. >> 0005 is Haribabu's patch: Reviewed by Tomas and I. > > I think it might be a good

Re: [HACKERS] Combining Aggregates

On 5 April 2016 at 05:54, Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 3:34 PM, David Rowley > wrote: > > I wrote 0002 - 0004, these were reviewed by Tomas. > > 0005 is Haribabu's patch: Reviewed by Tomas and I. > > I think it might be a good

Re: [HACKERS] Combining Aggregates

On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 3:34 PM, David Rowley wrote: > I wrote 0002 - 0004, these were reviewed by Tomas. > 0005 is Haribabu's patch: Reviewed by Tomas and I. I think it might be a good idea if these patches made less use of bytea and exposed the numeric transition

Re: [HACKERS] Combining Aggregates

On 31 March 2016 at 00:48, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 11:14 PM, David Rowley > wrote: >>> 0005: >>> Haribabu's patch; no change from last time. > > So what's the distinction between 0002 and 0005? And what is the > correct

Re: [HACKERS] Combining Aggregates

On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 11:14 PM, David Rowley wrote: > Many thanks Robert for committing the serialize states portion. yw, sorry I didn't get an email out about that. >> 0005: >> Haribabu's patch; no change from last time. So what's the distinction between 0002

Re: [HACKERS] Combining Aggregates

On 26 March 2016 at 15:07, David Rowley wrote: Many thanks Robert for committing the serialize states portion. > 0005: > Haribabu's patch; no change from last time. Just in case you jump ahead. I just wanted to re-highlight something Haribabu mentioned a while ago

Re: [HACKERS] Combining Aggregates

On 26 March 2016 at 15:07, David Rowley wrote: > Ok, so on further look at this I've decided to make changes and have > it so the serialisation function can be dumb about memory contexts in > the same way as finalize_aggregate() allows the final function to be >

Re: [HACKERS] Combining Aggregates

On 25 March 2016 at 06:17, Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 2:18 PM, David Rowley > wrote: >> I've attached 2 of the patches which are affected by the changes. > > I think the documentation for 0001 needs some work yet. The >

Re: [HACKERS] Combining Aggregates

On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 1:17 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > I'm going to read through the code again now. OK, I noticed another documentation problem: you need to update catalogs.sgml for these new columns. +* Validate the serial function, if present. We must ensure

Re: [HACKERS] Combining Aggregates

On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 2:18 PM, David Rowley wrote: > I've attached 2 of the patches which are affected by the changes. I think the documentation for 0001 needs some work yet. The additional paragraph that you've added... (1) doesn't seem to appear at a very

Re: [HACKERS] Combining Aggregates

On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 5:22 AM, David Rowley wrote: > On 21 January 2016 at 08:06, Robert Haas wrote: >> I re-reviewed this and have committed most of it with only minor >> kibitizing. A few notes: > > I realised today that the combinefunc

Re: [HACKERS] Combining Aggregates

On 21 January 2016 at 08:06, Robert Haas wrote: > I re-reviewed this and have committed most of it with only minor > kibitizing. A few notes: I realised today that the combinefunc is rather undocumented. I've attached a patch which aims to fix this. Comments are welcome.

Re: [HACKERS] Combining Aggregates

On 20 March 2016 at 16:48, David Rowley wrote: > I've attached another series of patches: > > 0001: This is the latest Parallel Aggregate Patch, not intended for > review here, but is required for the remaining patches. This patch has > changed quite a bit from the

Re: [HACKERS] Combining Aggregates

On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 11:48 PM, David Rowley wrote: > 0002: Adds serial/de-serial function support to CREATE AGGREGATE, > contains minor fix-ups from last version. This looks pretty good, but don't build_aggregate_serialfn_expr and build_aggregate_deserialfn_expr

Re: [HACKERS] Combining Aggregates

On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 2:23 PM, David Rowley wrote: > > I've had a look over this. I had to first base it on the 0005 patch, > as it seemed like the pg_aggregate.h changes didn't include the > serialfn and deserialfn changes, and an OID was being consumed by >

Re: [HACKERS] Combining Aggregates

Hi, On 03/20/2016 04:48 AM, David Rowley wrote: On 17 March 2016 at 14:25, Tomas Vondra wrote: On 03/16/2016 12:03 PM, David Rowley wrote: Patch 2: This adds the serial/deserial aggregate infrastructure, pg_dump support, CREATE AGGREGATE changes, and nodeAgg.c

Re: [HACKERS] Combining Aggregates

On 18 March 2016 at 13:39, Haribabu Kommi wrote: > On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 10:59 PM, Tomas Vondra > wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On 03/17/2016 12:53 PM, David Rowley wrote: >>> >> ... >>> >>> >>> I just had a quick skim over the patch and noticed

Re: [HACKERS] Combining Aggregates

On 17 March 2016 at 16:30, Haribabu Kommi wrote: > On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 10:08 PM, David Rowley > wrote: >> On 16 March 2016 at 23:54, Haribabu Kommi wrote: >>> On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 8:34 AM, David Rowley >>>

Re: [HACKERS] Combining Aggregates

Hi, On 03/17/2016 12:53 PM, David Rowley wrote: > ... > I just had a quick skim over the patch and noticed the naming convention you're using for the combine function is *_pl, and you have float8_pl. There's already a function named float8pl() which is quite close to what you have. I've been

Re: [HACKERS] Combining Aggregates

On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 10:08 PM, David Rowley wrote: > On 16 March 2016 at 23:54, Haribabu Kommi wrote: >> On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 8:34 AM, David Rowley >> wrote: >>> Yes me too, so I spent several hours

Re: [HACKERS] Combining Aggregates

Hi, On 03/16/2016 12:03 PM, David Rowley wrote: On 16 March 2016 at 10:34, David Rowley wrote: If Haribabu's patch does all that's required for the numerical aggregates for floating point types then the status of covered aggregates is (in order of

Re: [HACKERS] Combining Aggregates

On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 10:59 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote: > Hi, > > On 03/17/2016 12:53 PM, David Rowley wrote: >> > ... >> >> >> I just had a quick skim over the patch and noticed the naming >> convention you're using for the combine function is *_pl, and you have >>

Re: [HACKERS] Combining Aggregates

On 16 March 2016 at 23:54, Haribabu Kommi wrote: > On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 8:34 AM, David Rowley > wrote: >> Yes me too, so I spent several hours yesterday writing all of the >> combine functions and serialisation/deserialisation that are

Re: [HACKERS] Combining Aggregates

On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 8:34 AM, David Rowley wrote: > On 16 March 2016 at 06:39, Tomas Vondra wrote: >> After looking at the parallel aggregate patch, I also looked at this one, as >> it's naturally related. Sadly I haven't found any

Re: [HACKERS] Combining Aggregates

On 16 March 2016 at 06:39, Tomas Vondra wrote: > After looking at the parallel aggregate patch, I also looked at this one, as > it's naturally related. Sadly I haven't found any issue that I could nag > about ;-) The patch seems well baked, as it was in the oven for

Re: [HACKERS] Combining Aggregates

Hi, On 03/14/2016 05:45 AM, David Rowley wrote: On 14 March 2016 at 15:20, David Rowley wrote: Current patch: I've now updated the patch to base it on top of the parallel aggregate patch in [2]. To apply the attached, you must apply [2] first! ... [2]

Re: [HACKERS] Combining Aggregates

On 1/20/16 11:42 PM, David Rowley wrote: > On 21 January 2016 at 08:06, Robert Haas > wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 7:38 AM, David Rowley > > > wrote: > >

Re: [HACKERS] Combining Aggregates

On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 3:42 PM, David Rowley wrote: > On 21 January 2016 at 08:06, Robert Haas wrote: >> >> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 7:38 AM, David Rowley >> wrote: >> > Agreed. So I've attached a version of the

Re: [HACKERS] Combining Aggregates

On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 6:26 PM, Jeff Janes wrote: > On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 4:53 PM, David Rowley > wrote: >> >> It seems that I must have mistakenly believed that non-existing >> columns for previous versions were handled using the power of

Re: [HACKERS] Combining Aggregates

On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 4:53 PM, David Rowley wrote: > > It seems that I must have mistakenly believed that non-existing > columns for previous versions were handled using the power of magic. > Turns out that I was wrong, and they need to be included as dummy >

Re: [HACKERS] Combining Aggregates

On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 11:06 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 7:38 AM, David Rowley > wrote: >> Agreed. So I've attached a version of the patch which does not have any of >> the serialise/deserialise stuff in it. > > I

Re: [HACKERS] Combining Aggregates

On 23 January 2016 at 09:17, Jeff Janes wrote: > On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 11:06 AM, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 7:38 AM, David Rowley >> wrote: >>> Agreed. So I've attached a version of the patch which

Re: [HACKERS] Combining Aggregates

On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 4:08 PM, David Rowley wrote: > It's quite simple to test how much of a win it'll be in the serial > case today, and yes, it's not much, but it's a bit. > > create table t1 as select x from generate_series(1,100) x(x); > vacuum analyze t1;

Re: [HACKERS] Combining Aggregates

On 23 January 2016 at 09:44, David Rowley wrote: > On 23 January 2016 at 09:17, Jeff Janes wrote: >> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 11:06 AM, Robert Haas wrote: >>> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 7:38 AM, David Rowley >>>

Re: [HACKERS] Combining Aggregates

On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 9:33 PM, Haribabu Kommi wrote: > Here I attached updated patch of parallel aggregate based on the latest > changes in master. Still it lack of cost comparison of normal aggregate to > parallel aggregate because of difficulty. This cost comparison

Re: [HACKERS] Combining Aggregates

On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 8:32 PM, David Rowley wrote: > At the moment I think everything which will use this is queued up behind the > pathification of the grouping planner which Tom is working on. I think > naturally Parallel Aggregate makes sense to work on first,

Re: [HACKERS] Combining Aggregates

On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 3:52 PM, David Rowley wrote: > On 21 January 2016 at 15:53, Haribabu Kommi > wrote: >> >> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 1:33 PM, Haribabu Kommi >> wrote: >> > >> > Here I attached updated patch

Re: [HACKERS] Combining Aggregates

On 22 January 2016 at 06:56, Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 8:32 PM, David Rowley > wrote: >> The other two usages which I have thought of are; >> >> 1) Aggregating before UNION ALL, which might be fairly simple after the >>

Re: [HACKERS] Combining Aggregates

On 21 January 2016 at 08:06, Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 7:38 AM, David Rowley > wrote: > > Agreed. So I've attached a version of the patch which does not have any > of > > the serialise/deserialise stuff in it. > > I

Re: [HACKERS] Combining Aggregates

On 21 January 2016 at 04:59, Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 7:53 AM, David Rowley > wrote: > > On 21 January 2016 at 01:44, Robert Haas wrote: > >> > >> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 7:38 AM, David Rowley > >>

Re: [HACKERS] Combining Aggregates

On 21 January 2016 at 15:53, Haribabu Kommi wrote: > On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 1:33 PM, Haribabu Kommi > wrote: > > > > Here I attached updated patch of parallel aggregate based on the latest > > changes in master. Still it lack of cost

Re: [HACKERS] Combining Aggregates

On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 12:32 PM, David Rowley wrote: > On 21 January 2016 at 04:59, Robert Haas wrote: >> >> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 7:53 AM, David Rowley >> wrote: >> > On 21 January 2016 at 01:44, Robert Haas

Re: [HACKERS] Combining Aggregates

On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 1:33 PM, Haribabu Kommi wrote: > > Here I attached updated patch of parallel aggregate based on the latest > changes in master. Still it lack of cost comparison of normal aggregate to > parallel aggregate because of difficulty. This cost

Re: [HACKERS] Combining Aggregates

On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 7:53 AM, David Rowley wrote: > On 21 January 2016 at 01:44, Robert Haas wrote: >> >> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 7:38 AM, David Rowley >> wrote: >> >> To my mind, priority #1 ought to be

Re: [HACKERS] Combining Aggregates

On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 7:38 AM, David Rowley wrote: > Agreed. So I've attached a version of the patch which does not have any of > the serialise/deserialise stuff in it. I re-reviewed this and have committed most of it with only minor kibitizing. A few notes: - I

Re: [HACKERS] Combining Aggregates

On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 7:38 AM, David Rowley wrote: >> To my mind, priority #1 ought to be putting this fine new >> functionality to some use. Expanding it to every aggregate we've got >> seems like a distinctly second priority. That's not to say that it's >>

Re: [HACKERS] Combining Aggregates

On 21 January 2016 at 01:44, Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 7:38 AM, David Rowley > wrote: > >> To my mind, priority #1 ought to be putting this fine new > >> functionality to some use. Expanding it to every aggregate we've got

Re: [HACKERS] Combining Aggregates

On 20 January 2016 at 10:54, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 4:50 PM, David Rowley > wrote: > >> Oh, one more point: is there any reason why all of this needs to be a > >> single (giant) patch? I feel like the handling of

Re: [HACKERS] Combining Aggregates

On 20 January 2016 at 05:58, Robert Haas wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 4:02 AM, David Rowley > > wrote: > >> Now, there has been talk of this previously, on various threads, but I > don't > >> believe any final decisions were made on how

Re: [HACKERS] Combining Aggregates

On 20 January 2016 at 05:56, Robert Haas wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 4:02 AM, David Rowley > wrote: > > Now, there has been talk of this previously, on various threads, but I > don't > > believe any final decisions were made on how

Re: [HACKERS] Combining Aggregates

On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 4:50 PM, David Rowley wrote: >> Oh, one more point: is there any reason why all of this needs to be a >> single (giant) patch? I feel like the handling of internal states >> could be a separate patch from the basic patch to allow partial >>

Re: [HACKERS] Combining Aggregates

On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 11:24 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas writes: >> Here is a patch that helps a good deal. I changed things so that when >> we create a context, we always allocate at least 1kB. > > That's going to kill performance in some other

Re: [HACKERS] Combining Aggregates

On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 12:22 AM, Tomas Vondra wrote: > I dare to claim that if expanded objects require a separate memory context > per aggregate state (I don't see why would be the case), it's a dead end. > Not so long ago we've fixed exactly this issue in

Re: [HACKERS] Combining Aggregates

On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 11:56 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > [ rewinding to here from the detour I led us on ] > > On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 4:02 AM, David Rowley > wrote: >> Now, there has been talk of this previously, on various threads, but I don't

Re: [HACKERS] Combining Aggregates

[ rewinding to here from the detour I led us on ] On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 4:02 AM, David Rowley wrote: > Now, there has been talk of this previously, on various threads, but I don't > believe any final decisions were made on how exactly it should be done. At > the

Re: [HACKERS] Combining Aggregates

On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 10:32 PM, David Rowley wrote: > On 18 January 2016 at 16:44, Robert Haas wrote: >> >> On Sun, Jan 17, 2016 at 9:26 PM, David Rowley >> wrote: >> > hmm, so wouldn't that mean that the

Re: [HACKERS] Combining Aggregates

Robert Haas writes: > Yeah. The API contract for an expanded object took me quite a while > to puzzle out, but it seems to be this: if somebody hands you an R/W > pointer to an expanded object, you're entitled to assume that you can > "take over" that object and mutate it

Re: [HACKERS] Combining Aggregates

On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 12:09 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas writes: >> Yeah. The API contract for an expanded object took me quite a while >> to puzzle out, but it seems to be this: if somebody hands you an R/W >> pointer to an expanded object,

Re: [HACKERS] Combining Aggregates

On 18 January 2016 at 16:44, Robert Haas wrote: > On Sun, Jan 17, 2016 at 9:26 PM, David Rowley > wrote: > > hmm, so wouldn't that mean that the transition function would need to > (for > > each input tuple): > > > > 1. Parse that StringInfo

Re: [HACKERS] Combining Aggregates

On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 6:32 AM, David Rowley wrote: >> In my tests, this seems to be slightly slower than what we're doing >> today; worst of all, it adds a handful of cycles to >> advance_transition_function() even when the aggregate is not an >> expanded object

Re: [HACKERS] Combining Aggregates

> > > # explain analyze select a%100,length(string_agg(b,',')) from ab > group > > by 1; > > QUERY PLAN > > > --- > >

Re: [HACKERS] Combining Aggregates

On 19 January 2016 at 06:03, Pavel Stehule wrote: > > > > >> > # explain analyze select a%100,length(string_agg(b,',')) from ab >> group >> > by 1; >> > QUERY PLAN >> > >>

Re: [HACKERS] Combining Aggregates

On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 12:34 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 12:09 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Robert Haas writes: >>> Yeah. The API contract for an expanded object took me quite a while >>> to puzzle out, but it

Re: [HACKERS] Combining Aggregates

On 19 January 2016 at 18:04, Tomas Vondra wrote: > Hi, > > On 01/19/2016 05:00 AM, David Rowley wrote: > >> On 19 January 2016 at 06:03, Pavel Stehule > > wrote: >> >> ... > >> >> It is strange, why

Re: [HACKERS] Combining Aggregates

On 01/19/2016 05:14 AM, Robert Haas wrote: On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 12:34 PM, Robert Haas wrote: On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 12:09 PM, Tom Lane wrote: Robert Haas writes: Yeah. The API contract for an expanded object took me

Re: [HACKERS] Combining Aggregates

Robert Haas writes: > Here is a patch that helps a good deal. I changed things so that when > we create a context, we always allocate at least 1kB. That's going to kill performance in some other cases; subtransactions in particular rely on the subtransaction's

Re: [HACKERS] Combining Aggregates

Hi, On 01/19/2016 05:00 AM, David Rowley wrote: On 19 January 2016 at 06:03, Pavel Stehule > wrote: ... It is strange, why hashaggregate is too slow? Good question. I looked at this and found my VM was swapping like crazy. Upon

Re: [HACKERS] Combining Aggregates

On 01/19/2016 06:04 AM, Tomas Vondra wrote: Hi, On 01/19/2016 05:00 AM, David Rowley wrote: Good question. I looked at this and found my VM was swapping like crazy. Upon investigation it appears that's because, since the patch creates a memory context per aggregated group, and in this case

Re: [HACKERS] Combining Aggregates

On 19 January 2016 at 02:44, Haribabu Kommi wrote: > On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 10:32 PM, David Rowley > wrote: > > I just thought like direct mapping of the structure with text pointer. > something like > the below. > > result =

Re: [HACKERS] Combining Aggregates

On 19 January 2016 at 17:14, Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 12:34 PM, Robert Haas > wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 12:09 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > >> Robert Haas writes: > >>> Yeah. The API

Re: [HACKERS] Combining Aggregates

On Sun, Jan 17, 2016 at 9:26 PM, David Rowley wrote: > hmm, so wouldn't that mean that the transition function would need to (for > each input tuple): > > 1. Parse that StringInfo into tokens. > 2. Create a new aggregate state object. > 3. Populate the new aggregate

Re: [HACKERS] Combining Aggregates

On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 12:00 PM, David Rowley wrote: > On 16 January 2016 at 03:03, Robert Haas wrote: >> >> On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 7:39 PM, David Rowley >> wrote: >> >> No, the idea I had in mind was to allow

Re: [HACKERS] Combining Aggregates

On 18 January 2016 at 14:36, Haribabu Kommi wrote: > On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 12:00 PM, David Rowley > wrote: > > On 16 January 2016 at 03:03, Robert Haas wrote: > >> > >> On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 7:39 PM, David

Re: [HACKERS] Combining Aggregates

Man, I really shouldn't go on vacation for Christmas or, like, ever. My email responses get way too slow. Sorry. On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 7:39 PM, David Rowley wrote: >> No, the idea I had in mind was to allow it to continue to exist in the >> expanded format until

Re: [HACKERS] Combining Aggregates

On 16 January 2016 at 03:03, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 7:39 PM, David Rowley > wrote: > >> No, the idea I had in mind was to allow it to continue to exist in the > >> expanded format until you really need it in the varlena

Re: [HACKERS] Combining Aggregates

On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 3:34 PM, David Rowley wrote: > On 8 January 2016 at 22:43, David Rowley > wrote: >> >> I've attached some re-based patched on current master. This is just to fix >> a duplicate OID problem. >> > > I've attached

Re: [HACKERS] Combining Aggregates

On 25 December 2015 at 14:10, Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 4:53 PM, David Rowley > wrote: > > On 22 December 2015 at 01:30, Robert Haas wrote: > >> Can we use Tom's expanded-object stuff instead of

Re: [HACKERS] Combining Aggregates

On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 4:53 PM, David Rowley wrote: > On 22 December 2015 at 01:30, Robert Haas wrote: >> Can we use Tom's expanded-object stuff instead of introducing >> aggserialfn and aggdeserialfn? In other words, if you have a >>

Re: [HACKERS] Combining Aggregates

On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 7:50 PM, David Rowley wrote: > One other part that I'm not too sure on how to deal with is how to set the > data type for the Aggrefs when we're not performing finalization on the > aggregate node. The return type for the Aggref in this case

Re: [HACKERS] Combining Aggregates

On Thu, Dec 24, 2015 at 1:12 PM, David Rowley wrote: > On 24 December 2015 at 13:55, Haribabu Kommi > wrote: >> >> On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 7:50 PM, David Rowley >> wrote: >> > One other part that I'm not too

Re: [HACKERS] Combining Aggregates

On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 7:50 PM, David Rowley wrote: > This is just my serial format that I've come up with for NumericAggState, > which is basically: "N sumX maxScale maxScaleCount NaNcount". Perhaps we can > come up with something better, maybe just packing the

Re: [HACKERS] Combining Aggregates

On 23 December 2015 at 21:50, David Rowley wrote: > Apart from the problems I listed above, I'm reasonably happy with the > patch now, and I'm ready for someone else to take a serious look at it. > I forgot to mention another situation where this patch might need a

Re: [HACKERS] Combining Aggregates

On 24 December 2015 at 13:55, Haribabu Kommi wrote: > On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 7:50 PM, David Rowley > wrote: > > One other part that I'm not too sure on how to deal with is how to set > the > > data type for the Aggrefs when we're not

Re: [HACKERS] Combining Aggregates

On 24 December 2015 at 14:07, Haribabu Kommi wrote: > On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 7:50 PM, David Rowley > wrote: > > This is just my serial format that I've come up with for NumericAggState, > > which is basically: "N sumX maxScale

Re: [HACKERS] Combining Aggregates

On 22 December 2015 at 01:30, Robert Haas wrote: > Can we use Tom's expanded-object stuff instead of introducing > aggserialfn and aggdeserialfn? In other words, if you have a > aggtranstype = INTERNAL, then what we do is: > > 1. Create a new data type that represents the

Re: [HACKERS] Combining Aggregates

On 18 December 2015 at 01:28, David Rowley wrote: > # select sum(x::numeric) from generate_series(1,3) x(x); > ERROR: invalid memory alloc request size 18446744072025250716 > > The reason that this happens is down to the executor always thinking that > Aggref

Re: [HACKERS] Combining Aggregates

On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 4:02 AM, David Rowley wrote: > Ok, so it seems that my mindset was not in parallel process space when I > was thinking about this. I think having the pointer in the Tuple is > probably going to be fine for this multiple stage aggregation

Re: [HACKERS] Combining Aggregates

On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 12:01 AM, David Rowley wrote: > On 27 July 2015 at 04:58, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: >> This patch seems sane to me, as far as it goes. However, there's no >> planner or executor code to use the aggregate combining for

  1   2   >