From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Atri Sharma <atri(dot)jiit(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Risk Estimation WAS: Planner hints in Postgresql |
Date: | 2014-03-18 18:41:59 |
Message-ID: | 23908.1395168119@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Atri Sharma <atri(dot)jiit(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> One of the factors that leads to bad estimates is that the histogram of the
> values of a column maintained by the planner gets old by time and the data
> in the column changes. So, the histogram is no longer a quite accurate view
> of the data and it leads to bad selectivity.
TBH, this is so far down the list of problems that it'll be a long time
before we need to worry about it. It's certainly not the number one
priority for any project to model risk in the planner.
The thing that I think is probably the number one problem is estimates
that depend on an assumption of uniform distribution of sought-after rows
among those encountered by a scan. This is usually where bad plans for
LIMIT queries are coming from. We could certainly add some sort of fudge
factor to those costs, but I'd like to have a more-or-less principled
framework for doing so.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2014-03-18 18:42:44 | Re: pg_archivecleanup bug |
Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2014-03-18 18:41:52 | Re: Wiki Page Draft for upcoming release |