From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | James Coleman <jtc331(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Rafia Sabih <rafia(dot)pghackers(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Shaun Thomas <shaun(dot)thomas(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Andreas Karlsson <andreas(at)proxel(dot)se> |
Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Incremental sort (was: PoC: Partial sort) |
Date: | 2020-03-31 22:35:32 |
Message-ID: | 2608.1585694132@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> In general, I think it'd be naive that we can make planner smarter with
> no extra overhead spent on planning, and we can never accept patches
> adding even tiny overhead. With that approach we'd probably end up with
> a trivial planner that generates just a single query plan, because
> that's going to be the fastest planner. A realistic approach needs to
> consider both the planning and execution phase, and benefits of this
> patch seem to be clear - if you have queries that do benefit from it.
I think that's kind of attacking a straw man, though. The thing that
people push back on, or should push back on IMO, is when a proposed
patch adds significant slowdown to queries that it has no or very little
hope of improving. The trick is to do expensive stuff only when
there's a good chance of getting a better plan out of it.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tomas Vondra | 2020-03-31 22:45:37 | Re: [PATCH] Incremental sort (was: PoC: Partial sort) |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2020-03-31 22:07:49 | Re: [HACKERS] Restricting maximum keep segments by repslots |