Re: Back-patch change in hashed DISTINCT estimation?

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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