From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: performance of IN (subquery) |
Date: | 2004-08-27 14:47:40 |
Message-ID: | 200408271447.i7REleo22174@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Is there anything for the TODO here?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Lane wrote:
> Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> writes:
> > I'm not about to run analyze in the middle of the data generation
> > (which wouldn't work anyways since it's in a transaction).
>
> Since 7.3 or 7.4, you *can* run ANALYZE in the middle of a transaction.
> The cached-plan business is a problem, I agree, but I think it's
> orthogonal to this particular discussion (and you can always use EXECUTE
> if you have to).
>
> >> In the absence of any ANALYZE data the tuples-per-page estimate might be
> >> pretty bogus, but it couldn't be off by more than an order of magnitude or
> >> so either way.
>
> > I don't see why it couldn't. If you have a table badly in need of vacuuming
> > (or had one at the time of the last analyze) it could be off by way more than
> > an order of magnitude.
>
> Well, I was actually thinking of the physical tuples-per-page stat
> (perhaps better expressed as an average tuple size), but you are right
> that the fraction of dead tuples is also something to think about.
> We don't model that explicitly ATM but maybe we should. The original
> VACUUM-based stats code couldn't really do much with it, since VACUUM
> would leave no dead tuples behind in the first place; but separate
> ANALYZE could definitely make an estimate of the fraction of dead tuples.
>
> > Ideally I would want a guarantee that every query would *always*
> > result in the same plan. Once I've tested them and approved the plans
> > I want to know that only those approved plans will ever run, and I
> > want to be present and be able to verify new plans before they go into
> > production.
>
> > I doubt I'm going to convince anyone today,
>
> Nope, you aren't. The above seems to me to be a recipe for degradation
> of performance over time, precisely because the plans wouldn't change in
> the face of changes in the situation. I've resisted adding "planner
> hints" to the language for this reason, and I'm certainly not eager to
> offer any hard guarantees about plans not changing.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
> (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org)
>
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jeremy Jongsma | 2004-08-27 14:48:00 | Strange difference in query execution time |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2004-08-27 14:20:50 | Re: performance of IN (subquery) |