From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl> |
Cc: | Michael Fuhr <mike(at)fuhr(dot)org>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Functionscan estimates |
Date: | 2005-04-08 23:04:27 |
Message-ID: | 200504081604.27845.josh@agliodbs.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance |
Alvaro, Michael,
> > About a month ago I mentioned that I'd find that useful. In a
> > followup, Christopher Kings-Lynne brought up the idea of a GUC
> > variable that could give hints about the expected row count.
>
> That seems pretty limited ... what happens if the query contains more
> that one SRF?
Yeah, I'd see that as a pretty bad idea too. I don't want to tell the planner
how many rows I expect "all functions" to return, I want to tell it how many
*one particular* function will return.
> Maybe issuing some sort of special call to the function (say, with
> some boolean in the call info struct) on which it returns planning data;
> thus the planner can call the function itself. The hard part would be
> figuring out how to do it without breaking backwards compatibility with
> functions that don't know how to handle that. (And how to do it in
> plpgsql).
Or in pl/perl, or pl/python, or plsh .... doesn't sound feasable.
My solution would be a lot simpler, since we could simply populate
pg_proc.proestrows with "1000" by default if not changed by the DBA. In an
even better world, we could tie it to a table, saying that, for example,
proestrows = my_table*0.02.
--
--Josh
Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Sergey E. Koposov | 2005-04-08 23:43:46 | Tab-completion feature ? |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2005-04-08 22:45:56 | Re: Functionscan estimates |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2005-04-08 23:57:31 | Re: Functionscan estimates |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2005-04-08 22:45:56 | Re: Functionscan estimates |