From: | "Tels" <nospam-pg-abuse(at)bloodgate(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Account for cost and selectivity of HAVING quals |
Date: | 2017-10-31 23:31:29 |
Message-ID: | 0410ddd44e3823059cf7d39f9b3e82c4.squirrel@sm.webmail.pair.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Moin,
On Tue, October 31, 2017 5:45 pm, Tom Lane wrote:
> Pursuant to the discussion at
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20171029112420.8920B5FB05@mx.zeyos.com
> here's a patch to fix the planner so that eval costs and selectivity of
> HAVING quals are factored into the appropriate plan node numbers.
> Perhaps unsurprisingly, this doesn't change the results of any
> existing regression tests.
>
> It's slightly annoying that this approach will result in calculating
> the eval costs and selectivity several times, once for each aggregation
> plan type we consider. I thought about inserting RestrictInfo nodes
> into the havingQual so that those numbers could be cached, but that turned
> out to break various code that doesn't expect to see such nodes there.
> I'm not sure it's worth going to the trouble of fixing that; in the big
> scheme of things, the redundant calculations likely don't cost much, since
> we aren't going to have relevant statistics.
>
> Comments? If anyone wants to do a real review of this, I'm happy to stick
> it into the upcoming CF; but without an expression of interest, I'll just
> push it. I don't think there's anything terribly controversial here.
Not a review, but the patch has this:
+ total_cost += qual_cost.startup + output_tuples *
qual_cost.per_tuple;
+
+ output_tuples = clamp_row_est(output_tuples *
...
That looks odd to me, it first uses output_tuples in a formula, then
overwrites the value with a new value. Should these lines be swapped?
Best regards,
Tels
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Oleg Ivanov | 2017-10-31 23:43:59 | Proposal: generic WAL compression |
Previous Message | Tomas Vondra | 2017-10-31 23:12:38 | Re: Re: PANIC: invalid index offnum: 186 when processing BRIN indexes in VACUUM |