Re: WIP: Upper planner pathification

Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On 2016-03-12 12:22:01 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I wonder whether that's pathification per se.

> If you're interested enough, I've uploaded a dump of the schema relevant
> table to http://anarazel.de/t/lineitem_95_96_plan.dump.gz

I haven't dug into it, but I'll bet this is a case of add_path deciding
that the GroupAgg plan is fuzzily the same cost and better sorted (ie,
it produces *some* sort order, versus none for the hash), so it kicks
the hash plan out. Again, that would not have happened with the old
hard-wired cost comparisons in grouping_planner, because they considered
no factors other than an exact cost comparison.

> I've not yet looked deep enough to determine the root cause; I did
> however notice that set enable_sort = false; yields a cheaper plan than
> the default one, within the fuzz range (137.91..137.93 vs 138.43..139.02).

Yeah, you're just forcing it to choose the hash plan again. But that's
within the cost fuzz range, so it's a legitimate choice.

regards, tom lane