From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Back-patch change in hashed DISTINCT estimation? |
Date: | 2013-08-21 11:05:26 |
Message-ID: | 20130821110526.GB5185@awork2.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2013-08-20 17:24:18 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> In a thread over in pgsql-performance, Tomas Vondra pointed out that
> choose_hashed_distinct was sometimes making different choices than
> choose_hashed_grouping, so that queries like these:
>
> select distinct x from ... ;
> select x from ... group by 1;
>
> might get different plans even though they should be equivalent.
> After some debugging it turns out that I omitted hash_agg_entry_size()
> from the hash table size estimate in choose_hashed_distinct --- I'm pretty
> sure I momentarily thought that this function must yield zero if there are
> no aggregates, but that's wrong. So we need a patch like this:
> What I'm wondering is whether to back-patch this or leave well enough
> alone. The risk of back-patching is that it might destabilize plan
> choices that people like. [...]
> A possible compromise is to back-patch into 9.3 (where the argument about
> destabilizing plan choices doesn't have much force yet), but not further.
+1 for 9.3 only.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2013-08-21 11:33:40 | Re: [BUGS] BUG #8335: trim() un-document behaviour |
Previous Message | ciifrancesco@tiscali.it | 2013-08-21 10:56:11 | R: [pgsql-zh-general] (solved - 谢谢) Chinese in Postgres |