hawq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Leon Zhang <leonca...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Performance issue about HAWQ 2.0 beta
Date Mon, 30 Nov 2015 07:22:54 GMT
Hi, Martin Visser

   Thanks for you quick reply.  I attached the "explain analyze" in my last
email of this thread.

  And because hawq-2.0 introduce the "virtual segment", and we configure 8
virtual-segment for each node. So, we can see different segment numbers.

On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 4:58 PM, Martin Visser <mvisser@pivotal.io> wrote:

> Hi Leon,
>
> looking at the 2.0 plan, you're perhaps missing stats on some of the tables
> for example:
> -> Parquet table Scan on catalog_sales  (cost=0.00..23885.35 rows=1
> width=197)
> -> Parquet table Scan on web_sales  (cost=0.00..11982.30 rows=1 width=197)
>
> Can you check or run explain analyze?  Also number of segments is showing
> different numbers 1.3 5 segs and 2.0 40 sets
>
> On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 7:43 AM, Leon Zhang <leoncamel@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi, HAWQ Developers:
> >
> >    As my previous email hint, I run TPC-DS test on our development.
> > Comparing with previous version 1.3.x, we can see the performance
> > improvement on most of queries.
> >
> >    But the problem is performance reduction for *some* queries. For
> > example, the query64, the running time increase from 10754.688 ms
> > to 68884.731 ms . I am not sure if any changes were made that increase
> the
> > running time?
> >
> >    In order to discuss the detail about this issue, I would like use the
> > query10. The running time increase from 1795.746 ms to 744919.251 ms. I
> > also attache the sql about this query, and the query plan for this query.
> >
> >    Thanks
> >
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message